Showing posts with label I Don't Hate You. Show all posts
Showing posts with label I Don't Hate You. Show all posts
Friday, May 3, 2013
Saturday, April 6, 2013
Worth posting: a word from an (Anonymous) LCB clerk
This comment and my response from the post just below was worth posting here on its own to get more attention. I've edited my response a little just to polish it. This...is directed at the PLCB employees. It's about how to keep your jobs, and take pride in them.
Anonymous said...
Another word to my fellow LCB employees:
You cannot, and should not, expect anyone to choose sides on the privatization debate based on our losing our jobs. On the positive side, the thing we CAN do is educate ourselves about the products we sell. Product knowledge is a skill that will serve both to break the stereotype of the potable-ignorant LCB clerk AND also to give us a strong leg-up if we end up having to apply for jobs in the private sector.
My response...
Bullseye. The service at the State Stores isn't being talked about in the high-level debate in Harrisburg, for the human and political reason that no legislator wants to be quoted criticizing people's performance, but it is definitely discussed among the people who actually have to use the system.
I've said all along that the service I've received at the register has almost always been satisfactory, and often quite friendly. But the service out on the floor is distinctly sub-par, with a very few notable exceptions. I've been given to understand that there's no real program in place to increase product knowledge, and it shows.
Your union reps may tell you what a horrible work environment Total Wine is, but fail to point out that while their employees complain about their treatment by management, they almost never fail to admit that the training they receive in wine and spirits is exemplary...and they often use it to go elsewhere.
If you get motivated about what you're selling, and get excited about helping the people who need help...that's the very best thing you can do to stop privatization. Much better than the chanting and shouting that the UFCW encourages, much better than the flimsy "control" statistics, much better than allying yourself with anti-alcohol groups (because that just emphasizes the innate and bizarre dichotomy of the whole control/sell dual nature of the agency).
If you want a "modernization" program that could actually save your jobs, look to Sweden's Systembolaget, their state monopoly wine and spirits retailer. I've heard nothing but praise for it from producers (I was on a press trip with the Swedish brand manager for Pernod Ricard, and she never stopped praising it) and from consumers; a fraternity brother of mine now lives in Stockholm -- he's very picky about wine -- and he raves about the service and selection at Systembolaget...and as a former Pennsylvanian pities me for the State Stores.
Real modernization would include linking product knowledge and sales performance to advancement, would include a wine specialist and a spirits specialist at each premium store. It would give the local store managers much more training, and much more control over what's sold at their stores. It would take the control of shelf facings away from the people in Harrisburg and give it to you, the people who are actually selling, and seeing what your customers buy, and what they're not finding.
I don't think that's likely to happen, but if it did? It would go a long way to shutting me up on this issue. It would also help if some of your co-workers would stop trying to tell me that private stores in other states aren't as good as the State Stores, because I go there, and that's simply not true. Doesn't help your case. Instead, do what you can to make your service, your store better. Just do what you can, where you are.
I don't go to New Jersey for the prices. I go for the selection, somewhat, especially on spirits, because the State Store is, for whatever reason, scared of whisky. But the main reason I avoid the State Stores is the service. I get much better, much more helpful service at the private stores in New Jersey, New York, Maryland, and Delaware. Fact.
And let me add: I've already talked about how to change the State Stores and save them here. Add this stuff, and you've got a good formula for it. But...I still don't think it's going to happen. Because no one in the upper bureaucracy of the PLCB cares -- because their jobs aren't directly at risk -- and Wendell W. Young IV doesn't care, because up until now, shouting and chanting and yellow shirts and campaign donations have been all he's needed to just keep things the way they are. You're being encouraged to keep the status quo, but the status quo is what 60% of Pennsylvanians don't want (and remember: a large chunk of the 40% or so that says they're in favor of keeping the State Stores don't drink, and would really rather just have Prohibition). You can do better. You can do better on your own. Think about it.
Anonymous said...
Another word to my fellow LCB employees:
You cannot, and should not, expect anyone to choose sides on the privatization debate based on our losing our jobs. On the positive side, the thing we CAN do is educate ourselves about the products we sell. Product knowledge is a skill that will serve both to break the stereotype of the potable-ignorant LCB clerk AND also to give us a strong leg-up if we end up having to apply for jobs in the private sector.
My response...
Bullseye. The service at the State Stores isn't being talked about in the high-level debate in Harrisburg, for the human and political reason that no legislator wants to be quoted criticizing people's performance, but it is definitely discussed among the people who actually have to use the system.
I've said all along that the service I've received at the register has almost always been satisfactory, and often quite friendly. But the service out on the floor is distinctly sub-par, with a very few notable exceptions. I've been given to understand that there's no real program in place to increase product knowledge, and it shows.
Your union reps may tell you what a horrible work environment Total Wine is, but fail to point out that while their employees complain about their treatment by management, they almost never fail to admit that the training they receive in wine and spirits is exemplary...and they often use it to go elsewhere.
If you get motivated about what you're selling, and get excited about helping the people who need help...that's the very best thing you can do to stop privatization. Much better than the chanting and shouting that the UFCW encourages, much better than the flimsy "control" statistics, much better than allying yourself with anti-alcohol groups (because that just emphasizes the innate and bizarre dichotomy of the whole control/sell dual nature of the agency).
If you want a "modernization" program that could actually save your jobs, look to Sweden's Systembolaget, their state monopoly wine and spirits retailer. I've heard nothing but praise for it from producers (I was on a press trip with the Swedish brand manager for Pernod Ricard, and she never stopped praising it) and from consumers; a fraternity brother of mine now lives in Stockholm -- he's very picky about wine -- and he raves about the service and selection at Systembolaget...and as a former Pennsylvanian pities me for the State Stores.
Real modernization would include linking product knowledge and sales performance to advancement, would include a wine specialist and a spirits specialist at each premium store. It would give the local store managers much more training, and much more control over what's sold at their stores. It would take the control of shelf facings away from the people in Harrisburg and give it to you, the people who are actually selling, and seeing what your customers buy, and what they're not finding.
I don't think that's likely to happen, but if it did? It would go a long way to shutting me up on this issue. It would also help if some of your co-workers would stop trying to tell me that private stores in other states aren't as good as the State Stores, because I go there, and that's simply not true. Doesn't help your case. Instead, do what you can to make your service, your store better. Just do what you can, where you are.
I don't go to New Jersey for the prices. I go for the selection, somewhat, especially on spirits, because the State Store is, for whatever reason, scared of whisky. But the main reason I avoid the State Stores is the service. I get much better, much more helpful service at the private stores in New Jersey, New York, Maryland, and Delaware. Fact.
And let me add: I've already talked about how to change the State Stores and save them here. Add this stuff, and you've got a good formula for it. But...I still don't think it's going to happen. Because no one in the upper bureaucracy of the PLCB cares -- because their jobs aren't directly at risk -- and Wendell W. Young IV doesn't care, because up until now, shouting and chanting and yellow shirts and campaign donations have been all he's needed to just keep things the way they are. You're being encouraged to keep the status quo, but the status quo is what 60% of Pennsylvanians don't want (and remember: a large chunk of the 40% or so that says they're in favor of keeping the State Stores don't drink, and would really rather just have Prohibition). You can do better. You can do better on your own. Think about it.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
A response to one anti-privatization talking point...
John Rzodkiewicz, who is apparently a State Store employee (at least, that's what he claims on his Facebook profile, and I have no reason to doubt him), has made some well-spoken counters on my pro-privatization Facebook page. I've developed a respect for the man. Recently he posted a link to a piece about the failure of privatization in Washington State (ahem...written by the Washington wine and spirits wholesalers association...), and followed it up with this comment:
I felt compelled to respond, and wanted to share that response here.
John, the problem is, it's NOT a "public asset." It's an out of date, paternalistic anomaly, it is an insult to the character of the citizens of the Commonwealth to think we need to be "controlled," and under Joe Conti it has become an arrogant embarrassment.
"Wine kiosks"?! Questionable "courtesy contracts" awarded to family members of PLCB managers? The public humiliation of the BLCE because of incredibly shoddy record-keeping on beer registration? This is a system that NEEDS privatization to take it out of the hands of the people running it.
Honestly? For me, and for many others, it's not about the money. It's about the ridiculous monopoly. If I'm 15 minutes from my home in New Jersey for work, I'm not allowed to pick up a bottle of wine on my way home? That's not economic, that's unAmerican. And it's the only way the PLCB makes their "profit" -- a piddling 20-25% of the total they continue to claim they send to the General Fund -- by having a police-enforced monopoly that requires PA citizens to buy at the State Stores.
This isn't about the money, the "public asset," for the most vocal opponents of privatization: the UFCW.* It's about their jobs, that's all. Understandable, but this is not a public jobs program; or at least, it shouldn't be. It's a fossil. They can get jobs in the new private stores.
Give US a referendum, John. We'll deliver privatization.
*Again, and again, and again: I am not anti-union. I am strongly in favor of privatization of the Pennsylvania State Stores; that's all. I do realize that would mean the loss of union jobs...but new jobs would be created immediately.
Pro- privatization was ahead 85% to15% early on before debate.After some sober analysis the people saw no state has made more money from liquor after privatization, and just said no to selling off their public asset.
I felt compelled to respond, and wanted to share that response here.
John, the problem is, it's NOT a "public asset." It's an out of date, paternalistic anomaly, it is an insult to the character of the citizens of the Commonwealth to think we need to be "controlled," and under Joe Conti it has become an arrogant embarrassment.
"Wine kiosks"?! Questionable "courtesy contracts" awarded to family members of PLCB managers? The public humiliation of the BLCE because of incredibly shoddy record-keeping on beer registration? This is a system that NEEDS privatization to take it out of the hands of the people running it.
Honestly? For me, and for many others, it's not about the money. It's about the ridiculous monopoly. If I'm 15 minutes from my home in New Jersey for work, I'm not allowed to pick up a bottle of wine on my way home? That's not economic, that's unAmerican. And it's the only way the PLCB makes their "profit" -- a piddling 20-25% of the total they continue to claim they send to the General Fund -- by having a police-enforced monopoly that requires PA citizens to buy at the State Stores.
This isn't about the money, the "public asset," for the most vocal opponents of privatization: the UFCW.* It's about their jobs, that's all. Understandable, but this is not a public jobs program; or at least, it shouldn't be. It's a fossil. They can get jobs in the new private stores.
Give US a referendum, John. We'll deliver privatization.
*Again, and again, and again: I am not anti-union. I am strongly in favor of privatization of the Pennsylvania State Stores; that's all. I do realize that would mean the loss of union jobs...but new jobs would be created immediately.
Saturday, February 5, 2011
State Store Stings?
I have a Facebook page about this subject, Abolish the PLCB -- Rewrite the Code! (feel free to join, if you haven't already), and there are some serious PLCB apologists who joined and post counters to privatization. I suspect they're PLCB employees (present or retired) or fellow union members, but I have no proof...and my suspicions are mostly based on my incredulity that anyone else would support the PLCB, I'll admit that.
Anyway, one of them was posting a number of news reports (from other states) about sting operations that had resulted in arrests of liquor store staff or owners making sales to minors. This would always be accompanied by crowing about how privatization would bring more sales to minors, and that the PLCB clerks never ever sell to minors. Well, that's probably not actually true, because I've noticed that PLCB supporters have just started saying that there were only two sales to minors in the past 7 years, but that's still pretty impressive.
Only...wait a minute. Just how cozy is the relationship between PLCB store clerks and Bureau of Liquor Control Enforcement agents? So I started responding to all his posts: "Hey, does the BLCE ever conduct stings on State Stores? Just asking!" Never got a response.
To tell the truth...I don't know. Do they? Because if they don't...it's a meaningless statistic. I'd say I'd like to see it happen, but honestly? I wouldn't, because the way the regs are set up, any PLCB clerk who sells to an underage purchaser loses their job and their pension. I wouldn't want to see that just to prove a point. But...in the absence of such stings, this is comparing apples and oranges. Stick a pin in this balloon.
Anyway, one of them was posting a number of news reports (from other states) about sting operations that had resulted in arrests of liquor store staff or owners making sales to minors. This would always be accompanied by crowing about how privatization would bring more sales to minors, and that the PLCB clerks never ever sell to minors. Well, that's probably not actually true, because I've noticed that PLCB supporters have just started saying that there were only two sales to minors in the past 7 years, but that's still pretty impressive.
Only...wait a minute. Just how cozy is the relationship between PLCB store clerks and Bureau of Liquor Control Enforcement agents? So I started responding to all his posts: "Hey, does the BLCE ever conduct stings on State Stores? Just asking!" Never got a response.
To tell the truth...I don't know. Do they? Because if they don't...it's a meaningless statistic. I'd say I'd like to see it happen, but honestly? I wouldn't, because the way the regs are set up, any PLCB clerk who sells to an underage purchaser loses their job and their pension. I wouldn't want to see that just to prove a point. But...in the absence of such stings, this is comparing apples and oranges. Stick a pin in this balloon.
Friday, June 11, 2010
"There is no such wine."
David Falchek blogs about wine ("Empty Bottles") for the Scranton Times-Tribune, and does a nice job. He also...doesn't think much of the PLCB and the State's monopoly on booze sales. Read this classic tale of just what I'm talking about when I say that the State Store System doesn't exist to serve the citizens or to "protect" them through "control." It exists to serve the State and the employees; it exists to take your money.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Do you know everything about vodka, yellowtail wines, and schlock liqueurs?
The PLCB is advertising an opening for Director of Product Selection. Good pay, too, starting at just under $61,000 to over $90,000, depending on experience.
Could someone with a freakin' clue please apply for this job?
Could someone with a freakin' clue please apply for this job?
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Score One for the PLCB
Credit where it's due: the PLCB has done A Good Thing. PhillyMag food columnist and research editor Victor Fiorillo reported a few months ago that he'd been served what he thought was bogus Maker's Mark at Oscar's, a popular Center City dive-ish bar. He ordered another, surreptitiously poured it into a container, and left the bar with it. He sent it to the Bureau of Liquor Control Enforcement and filed a complaint. Two weeks later, the BLCE sent an agent to Oscar's, who checked the whole place -- the Maker's, the other booze, and the taplines (they weren't being cleaned properly) -- and took samples for analysis: six bottles of confiscated liquor.
The results are in: Oscar's put shite whiskey in a Maker's bottle. The BLCE found that the sample from Oscar's did not match a true sample; they found the same with a bottle of Ketel One. What's gonna happen? Fiorillo sez, "According to [the officer], her office’s legal department will now determine whether to issue a citation, after which a fine, suspension, or other penalty could be imposed." Excellent!
So. I slagged the PLCB last year for not giving a damn about consumer protection. God knows I've slagged PhillyMag for their booze coverage. I say thank you for a job well done to both today. This is exactly the kind of thing a state booze bureaucracy should be doing: protecting me from bad, mislabeled, fraudulent booze. I realize they're probably doing it because of taxes, but you know, it all works out. Cheers to Fiorillo for following through on this. And damn Oscar's for pulling the old switcheroo: that's about the worst crap a bar can pull. Don't know what the PLCB is going to do, but I'm dropping Oscar's from PA Breweries 4th Edition. It ain't much, but it's what I can do.
The results are in: Oscar's put shite whiskey in a Maker's bottle. The BLCE found that the sample from Oscar's did not match a true sample; they found the same with a bottle of Ketel One. What's gonna happen? Fiorillo sez, "According to [the officer], her office’s legal department will now determine whether to issue a citation, after which a fine, suspension, or other penalty could be imposed." Excellent!
So. I slagged the PLCB last year for not giving a damn about consumer protection. God knows I've slagged PhillyMag for their booze coverage. I say thank you for a job well done to both today. This is exactly the kind of thing a state booze bureaucracy should be doing: protecting me from bad, mislabeled, fraudulent booze. I realize they're probably doing it because of taxes, but you know, it all works out. Cheers to Fiorillo for following through on this. And damn Oscar's for pulling the old switcheroo: that's about the worst crap a bar can pull. Don't know what the PLCB is going to do, but I'm dropping Oscar's from PA Breweries 4th Edition. It ain't much, but it's what I can do.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Looking Forward
The general procedure around here is to find something the PLCB -- or the Legislature -- is screwing up (or The Almighty Liquor Code has already screwed up), point it out and explain why it's a problem, say The PLCB Should Be Abolished, and end with a few tart comments on how that could be accomplished. But the continuing hue and cry over the courtesy contract, the budget-driven renewed interest in selling off the State Store System, and the latest on the wine 'kiosk' bidding leads me to believe it may be time to talk about something else: what do we do if we win?
Think about it. What if all the people who are currently writing disgusted comments about the PLCB on various newspaper websites -- which is the political equivalent of snapping your fingers to keep away tigers -- turned around and started writing those disgusted comments in e-mails to their state representatives? (Which you can, by the way: start here.) What if campaign money suddenly started rolling in from donors who were in favor of privatization, folks like supermarkets, and beer distributors, and wine and liquor wholesalers? What if the Legislature finally paid attention to the economists and policy wonks who have been telling them for years that the state would be better off financially with privatization? What if...the Legislature voted to Abolish the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board?
First things first: I do not want to see a "win" diluted to the privatization of the existing State Stores, with no additional stores "allowed," and the State continuing as the wholesaler. From where I stand, this would be a very minor victory. Think about it: no grocery store sales, no more stores in low-coverage areas, no additional stores (leaving the state in an 'under-served' status), and the State still decides what goes on the shelves. No half-measures! And no damned case law, either.
I've already laid out a simplified plan for divestiture. "Do away with the PLCB: privatize booze sales, put licensing and inspection in the hands of the Dept. of Agriculture, tax collection in the purview of the Dept. of Revenue (they've got some experience with that), put the anti-alcoholism and underage drinking prevention programs under the Dept. of Health, and fully hand over enforcement to the State Police. Give a re-write of the Code over to a commission that includes interested consumers for a change, and charge them with writing a simpler, more understandable Code." Done.
But you want to know what amazes me? The Legislature's already got a plan. It was developed in 1987, and you can look at it here. Just click on the "Next" button at the top to see more. It's like reading some mirror-world where the State actually got its booze-selling head out of its ass and did things right, including putting licensing and taxing in the Department of Revenue and enforcement with the State Police, and putting the employees to work for the Dept. of General Services disposing of the assets.
They're definitely watching out for the employees, too. "The plan shall provide a schedule whereby all employes [sic] of the Board not transferred to the Department of Revenue, the State Police or the Department of General Services shall be made available as soon as possible for transfer to fill existing vacancies in other State agencies and to augment the activities of other State agencies." And "The Council shall develop plans to be approved by the Secretary of Administration for the transfer to other State agencies of all employes of the Board not transferred to the Department of Revenue, the State Police or the Department of General Services. Within the limits of available Commonwealth resources, the plan shall provide for the placement of all employes of the Board and shall not result in the furlough or reduction in pay for any employes of the Board."
I realize this means that the Governor would have to find another plum patronage position for Joe "ex-CEO" Conti, but this is a sacrifice I'm willing to make. Actually, we wouldn't have to. I think jobs like his would definitely be outside "the limits of available Commonwealth resources."
It's already done. It just needs tweaking and details. Tweaking, because it looks like they intend to keep the artificial division of beer stores and wine and liquor stores: not needed, stupid. I like the limit of three licenses per owner/corporation; it works well in Massachusetts. I don't like that owners of beer distributors are prohibited from owning a liquor store; put it all in one store. I actually wouldn't mind privately-owned booze-only stores, "package stores." Me, I don't need to buy my booze at grocery stores, as long as I don't have to buy it from the State. Details are needed, and this acknowledges that.
What we would need, though, is private citizen, non-lawyer representation on the Board that finally hammers this out. This is NOT something to be done behind closed doors; there's too much money involved. I want to see this fair, and I want to see it without all the licenses winding up in the hands of legislators' friends, and I want to see it so that it benefits the Commonwealth and all its citizens, not just a small influential group. Given the recent rotten history of the PLCB, I don't think that's an unreasonable request.
I'll have some ideas for you on how to take the fight to Harrisburg, and your local paper, and your local radio/TV stations. The iron's hot; time to strike.
Think about it. What if all the people who are currently writing disgusted comments about the PLCB on various newspaper websites -- which is the political equivalent of snapping your fingers to keep away tigers -- turned around and started writing those disgusted comments in e-mails to their state representatives? (Which you can, by the way: start here.) What if campaign money suddenly started rolling in from donors who were in favor of privatization, folks like supermarkets, and beer distributors, and wine and liquor wholesalers? What if the Legislature finally paid attention to the economists and policy wonks who have been telling them for years that the state would be better off financially with privatization? What if...the Legislature voted to Abolish the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board?
First things first: I do not want to see a "win" diluted to the privatization of the existing State Stores, with no additional stores "allowed," and the State continuing as the wholesaler. From where I stand, this would be a very minor victory. Think about it: no grocery store sales, no more stores in low-coverage areas, no additional stores (leaving the state in an 'under-served' status), and the State still decides what goes on the shelves. No half-measures! And no damned case law, either.
I've already laid out a simplified plan for divestiture. "Do away with the PLCB: privatize booze sales, put licensing and inspection in the hands of the Dept. of Agriculture, tax collection in the purview of the Dept. of Revenue (they've got some experience with that), put the anti-alcoholism and underage drinking prevention programs under the Dept. of Health, and fully hand over enforcement to the State Police. Give a re-write of the Code over to a commission that includes interested consumers for a change, and charge them with writing a simpler, more understandable Code." Done.
But you want to know what amazes me? The Legislature's already got a plan. It was developed in 1987, and you can look at it here. Just click on the "Next" button at the top to see more. It's like reading some mirror-world where the State actually got its booze-selling head out of its ass and did things right, including putting licensing and taxing in the Department of Revenue and enforcement with the State Police, and putting the employees to work for the Dept. of General Services disposing of the assets.
They're definitely watching out for the employees, too. "The plan shall provide a schedule whereby all employes [sic] of the Board not transferred to the Department of Revenue, the State Police or the Department of General Services shall be made available as soon as possible for transfer to fill existing vacancies in other State agencies and to augment the activities of other State agencies." And "The Council shall develop plans to be approved by the Secretary of Administration for the transfer to other State agencies of all employes of the Board not transferred to the Department of Revenue, the State Police or the Department of General Services. Within the limits of available Commonwealth resources, the plan shall provide for the placement of all employes of the Board and shall not result in the furlough or reduction in pay for any employes of the Board."
I realize this means that the Governor would have to find another plum patronage position for Joe "ex-CEO" Conti, but this is a sacrifice I'm willing to make. Actually, we wouldn't have to. I think jobs like his would definitely be outside "the limits of available Commonwealth resources."
It's already done. It just needs tweaking and details. Tweaking, because it looks like they intend to keep the artificial division of beer stores and wine and liquor stores: not needed, stupid. I like the limit of three licenses per owner/corporation; it works well in Massachusetts. I don't like that owners of beer distributors are prohibited from owning a liquor store; put it all in one store. I actually wouldn't mind privately-owned booze-only stores, "package stores." Me, I don't need to buy my booze at grocery stores, as long as I don't have to buy it from the State. Details are needed, and this acknowledges that.
What we would need, though, is private citizen, non-lawyer representation on the Board that finally hammers this out. This is NOT something to be done behind closed doors; there's too much money involved. I want to see this fair, and I want to see it without all the licenses winding up in the hands of legislators' friends, and I want to see it so that it benefits the Commonwealth and all its citizens, not just a small influential group. Given the recent rotten history of the PLCB, I don't think that's an unreasonable request.
I'll have some ideas for you on how to take the fight to Harrisburg, and your local paper, and your local radio/TV stations. The iron's hot; time to strike.
Monday, March 16, 2009
The Chairman (not the CEO) Responds
The following letter from PLCB Chairman PJ Stapleton to state Senators Orie and Eichelberger (who publicly questioned both the courtesy contract and its award to Solutions 21) was posted, in full, on the website of WGAL-TV and other places. I've re-posted here (in what I believe constitutes fair use, since this is a letter between two public officials) in order to comment on Chairman Stapleton's points; I've also added emphasis at times. It's an informative view into how the thinking on the other side of the issue goes.
Dear Senators Orie and Eichelberger:
Thank you for your letter regarding professional development at the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board. I would like to take this opportunity not only to answer every one of your questions, but also to make certain you and all those who care about public policy in Pennsylvania understand that the PLCB is a careful and responsible steward of the resources entrusted to us. We know that the taxpayers of Pennsylvania expect nothing less than our very best in managing those precious resources – particularly given the vulnerable state of our nation’s economy.
Unfortunately, the media coverage that led to your inquiry was profoundly misleading. A $173,000 contract on teaching manners – as has been widely reported – would be ridiculous. It would also be unnecessary, as our employees already are widely regarded as being welcoming and polite to our customers.
As you know, the Liquor Control Board operates 620 Wine & Spirits stores, which had sales of more than $1.7 billion in 2007-08. These sales generated some $428 million in 2007-08 for the Commonwealth’s General Fund in taxes and profits (please keep in mind: the taxes are about 3/4 of the take, and would be the same -- or more likely significantly larger -- under a private store regime). This makes us a significant retailer, whose successful financial management has a tremendous positive impact on the Commonwealth. The most successful retail business leaders know that creating and maintaining first-rate customer service is vital to their survival and success. So like our retail colleagues in the private sector, we are making this critical investment in our business. The fact that the LCB is a monopoly does not diminish this imperative. Our customers and your constituents still deserve a top-notch retail experience. (As we have for years -- still waiting -- and could have had with a privatization resolution.)
Our customer surveys have shown that our 3,000 union store employees generally provide good, and at times exceptional (I'd like to see the measures and definitions used), customer service to the citizens of this Commonwealth – a perspective that was repeatedly reinforced in much of the television news coverage this week. But it is our desire to provide excellent customer service consistently to all customers -- all the time. So, for the first time in many years, this program endeavors to give our hard-working employees the education and tools needed to provide our valued customers the superior service they expect and deserve.
This initiative is not news. In May 2008, we announced a series of steps to transform the shopping experience both inside our stores and online. It’s part of our comprehensive effort to put our customers first. At that news conference, which was well attended by the media, I announced that our efforts would include a fresh, new and welcoming look for our stores and, yes, more training for store staff to give them the tools they need to offer customers an outstanding shopping experience. Investing in such training is standard operating procedure in retail environments nationwide.
Consider:
Training Industry Inc., which monitors employee training trends, reported that U.S. companies spent $129.2 billion last year on the sort of professional development we have planned. A recent survey by the National Retail Federation found that more than 40 percent of retailers spend at least $500 per employee, per year, on training. The contract in question here amounts to less than $50 per employee (again: lowball bid? Too little to be effective?). Other state agencies have also recognized the importance of educating their employees to provide the best possible customer service.
Investing in improved customer service is a proven way to sustain sales – and thus sustain our support of the Commonwealth’s General Fund – during an economic downturn. Publications such as Business Week have reported that some companies are fighting to preserve customer-service initiatives during the recession while others are adding to these programs. If our customer-service initiative raises our sales just 1 percent for just one week – or $339,706 based on 2007-08 figures – it will have paid for itself more than twice over. (By increasing the gross by that amount? Doesn't ROI work on net? And...how will you know the increase came from the training? By using the measurement tools Solutions 21 designed?)
To fulfill the policy we announced last May, the LCB in November 2008 posted a public Request For Proposals (“RFP”) to solicit proposals for a contract under which the winning bidder would provide professional development training to the LCB’s retail store employees. Further, the winning bidder would provide leadership training to allow supervisory employees to continue the professional development initiative once the contract has expired. The LCB received five (5) qualified bids that were evaluated by a committee chosen for this task. The bids consisted of a technical submission and a cost submission, which are evaluated separately, when determining the winning proposal. After review of the technical submission of the proposals and in accordance with the Procurement Code, the cost submissions of the three highest scoring bids were reviewed. The winning proposer, Solutions 21, submitted a bid of $173,000. The other two bids were $453,521.76 and $1,212,175.00 (wow, that Solutions 21 bid is low). This fact has been left out of every news report on our awarding of the contract to Solutions 21. The only inappropriate use of our resources would have been to reject a qualified proposal to pay two-and-a-half or even seven times more.
I would also take this opportunity to address the unfair implications of media reports involving a devoted and long-term LCB employee, Susanne Hobart, who is married to the president of Solutions 21. Ms. Hobart is the regional manager for our stores located primarily in the western and northern part of the state. Neither Ms. Hobart, nor any of the employees she supervises, was involved in the procurement process. Neither Ms. Hobart, nor any of the employees she supervises, were part of the committee that reviewed the bids submitted under this RFP.
The State Adverse Interest Act prevents a Commonwealth employee from influencing or attempting to influence the making or supervision of any contract with the Commonwealth in which the person has an adverse interest. The Act defines an adverse interest as being a party to such a contract or having an interest in a party to such a contract. Ms. Hobart does not have an adverse interest, and she was not involved in the making or supervising of this contract. She is not the contract administrator, nor does she supervise the contract administrator. Her only involvement in this contract is that she and employees she supervises will receive training under the contract (and spending the money Buddy brings home?). Similarly, the Ethics Act, which deals with the awarding of contracts to state employees or their family members was not violated through this public procurement process. We believe that any fair review of the process will find that both the Liquor Control Board and Solutions 21 acted appropriately at all times. We would wholeheartedly cooperate in any such review. (I would hope so. And I hope it is a full review.)
Finally, and despite media reports to the contrary, the awarding of the contract for professional development did not involve taxpayer money (Of course it did). As you are aware, the LCB is self-supporting and spends no tax money; as stated earlier, it generates several hundred millions of dollars each year for the Commonwealth General Fund in terms of taxes and profits. (And any money spent out of the PLCB's gross to support this training is money taken from the taxpayer that never gets to the general fund. The LCB takes in millions in tax monies; are we to believe that the money is not fungible? Of course it is.)
Thank you for giving me this opportunity to address the issues raised in your letter. If we can provide additional information in this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me again.
Very truly yours,
Patrick J. Stapleton, III Chairman, Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board
Perhaps the most "ridiculous" thing in this whole letter is the talk about the product knowledge of State Store System employees. Yet it is fairly widely believed that State Store employees are not allowed to make recommendations, and never specific brands. Not the kind of reputation you'd expect in a system full of subject matter experts.
I'd say this training was desperately needed...only what's desperately needed is privatization. This is embarrassing, this is frustrating, this is ludicrous, and it only points up how ridiculous the entire system, the entire concept is. Take this albatross from around our necks. Abolish the PLCB.
Dear Senators Orie and Eichelberger:
Thank you for your letter regarding professional development at the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board. I would like to take this opportunity not only to answer every one of your questions, but also to make certain you and all those who care about public policy in Pennsylvania understand that the PLCB is a careful and responsible steward of the resources entrusted to us. We know that the taxpayers of Pennsylvania expect nothing less than our very best in managing those precious resources – particularly given the vulnerable state of our nation’s economy.
Unfortunately, the media coverage that led to your inquiry was profoundly misleading. A $173,000 contract on teaching manners – as has been widely reported – would be ridiculous. It would also be unnecessary, as our employees already are widely regarded as being welcoming and polite to our customers.
- (No offense to the clerks, but this is news to me, as in, I've never seen that reported. I've generally found State Store employees to be adequate at best, and at times mulishly uncooperative. I have heard from a few people about exceptions to that average. If there is a more scientific survey available, I'd be happy to report on it.)
- (There's about two pages in the document that deal with those priorities; the rest is boilerplate).
- ("1. Improve basic customer service skills, such as greeting customers appropriately, servicing customers, and completing sales with professionalism and courtesy." (Yet Stapleton says characterizing this as 'teaching manners' is "ridiculous.") "2. Promote a positive atmosphere and attitude towards customer service in the PLCB stores; one in which providing excellent, knowledgeable customer service is celebrated and encouraged.")
- (nothing specific about this in the contract either, just a vague "Encourage engagement with the PLCB's current agency-wide initiatives..." and something about "managing difficult customers.")
- (So the party providing the mechanism of evaluation of the contractor's product...is the contractor, not the PLCB. Sweet.)
- (And I hope the Senators take him up on this, and do their homework first.)
As you know, the Liquor Control Board operates 620 Wine & Spirits stores, which had sales of more than $1.7 billion in 2007-08. These sales generated some $428 million in 2007-08 for the Commonwealth’s General Fund in taxes and profits (please keep in mind: the taxes are about 3/4 of the take, and would be the same -- or more likely significantly larger -- under a private store regime). This makes us a significant retailer, whose successful financial management has a tremendous positive impact on the Commonwealth. The most successful retail business leaders know that creating and maintaining first-rate customer service is vital to their survival and success. So like our retail colleagues in the private sector, we are making this critical investment in our business. The fact that the LCB is a monopoly does not diminish this imperative. Our customers and your constituents still deserve a top-notch retail experience. (As we have for years -- still waiting -- and could have had with a privatization resolution.)
Our customer surveys have shown that our 3,000 union store employees generally provide good, and at times exceptional (I'd like to see the measures and definitions used), customer service to the citizens of this Commonwealth – a perspective that was repeatedly reinforced in much of the television news coverage this week. But it is our desire to provide excellent customer service consistently to all customers -- all the time. So, for the first time in many years, this program endeavors to give our hard-working employees the education and tools needed to provide our valued customers the superior service they expect and deserve.
This initiative is not news. In May 2008, we announced a series of steps to transform the shopping experience both inside our stores and online. It’s part of our comprehensive effort to put our customers first. At that news conference, which was well attended by the media, I announced that our efforts would include a fresh, new and welcoming look for our stores and, yes, more training for store staff to give them the tools they need to offer customers an outstanding shopping experience. Investing in such training is standard operating procedure in retail environments nationwide.
Consider:
Training Industry Inc., which monitors employee training trends, reported that U.S. companies spent $129.2 billion last year on the sort of professional development we have planned. A recent survey by the National Retail Federation found that more than 40 percent of retailers spend at least $500 per employee, per year, on training. The contract in question here amounts to less than $50 per employee (again: lowball bid? Too little to be effective?). Other state agencies have also recognized the importance of educating their employees to provide the best possible customer service.
Investing in improved customer service is a proven way to sustain sales – and thus sustain our support of the Commonwealth’s General Fund – during an economic downturn. Publications such as Business Week have reported that some companies are fighting to preserve customer-service initiatives during the recession while others are adding to these programs. If our customer-service initiative raises our sales just 1 percent for just one week – or $339,706 based on 2007-08 figures – it will have paid for itself more than twice over. (By increasing the gross by that amount? Doesn't ROI work on net? And...how will you know the increase came from the training? By using the measurement tools Solutions 21 designed?)
To fulfill the policy we announced last May, the LCB in November 2008 posted a public Request For Proposals (“RFP”) to solicit proposals for a contract under which the winning bidder would provide professional development training to the LCB’s retail store employees. Further, the winning bidder would provide leadership training to allow supervisory employees to continue the professional development initiative once the contract has expired. The LCB received five (5) qualified bids that were evaluated by a committee chosen for this task. The bids consisted of a technical submission and a cost submission, which are evaluated separately, when determining the winning proposal. After review of the technical submission of the proposals and in accordance with the Procurement Code, the cost submissions of the three highest scoring bids were reviewed. The winning proposer, Solutions 21, submitted a bid of $173,000. The other two bids were $453,521.76 and $1,212,175.00 (wow, that Solutions 21 bid is low). This fact has been left out of every news report on our awarding of the contract to Solutions 21. The only inappropriate use of our resources would have been to reject a qualified proposal to pay two-and-a-half or even seven times more.
I would also take this opportunity to address the unfair implications of media reports involving a devoted and long-term LCB employee, Susanne Hobart, who is married to the president of Solutions 21. Ms. Hobart is the regional manager for our stores located primarily in the western and northern part of the state. Neither Ms. Hobart, nor any of the employees she supervises, was involved in the procurement process. Neither Ms. Hobart, nor any of the employees she supervises, were part of the committee that reviewed the bids submitted under this RFP.
The State Adverse Interest Act prevents a Commonwealth employee from influencing or attempting to influence the making or supervision of any contract with the Commonwealth in which the person has an adverse interest. The Act defines an adverse interest as being a party to such a contract or having an interest in a party to such a contract. Ms. Hobart does not have an adverse interest, and she was not involved in the making or supervising of this contract. She is not the contract administrator, nor does she supervise the contract administrator. Her only involvement in this contract is that she and employees she supervises will receive training under the contract (and spending the money Buddy brings home?). Similarly, the Ethics Act, which deals with the awarding of contracts to state employees or their family members was not violated through this public procurement process. We believe that any fair review of the process will find that both the Liquor Control Board and Solutions 21 acted appropriately at all times. We would wholeheartedly cooperate in any such review. (I would hope so. And I hope it is a full review.)
Finally, and despite media reports to the contrary, the awarding of the contract for professional development did not involve taxpayer money (Of course it did). As you are aware, the LCB is self-supporting and spends no tax money; as stated earlier, it generates several hundred millions of dollars each year for the Commonwealth General Fund in terms of taxes and profits. (And any money spent out of the PLCB's gross to support this training is money taken from the taxpayer that never gets to the general fund. The LCB takes in millions in tax monies; are we to believe that the money is not fungible? Of course it is.)
Thank you for giving me this opportunity to address the issues raised in your letter. If we can provide additional information in this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me again.
Very truly yours,
Patrick J. Stapleton, III Chairman, Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board
Perhaps the most "ridiculous" thing in this whole letter is the talk about the product knowledge of State Store System employees. Yet it is fairly widely believed that State Store employees are not allowed to make recommendations, and never specific brands. Not the kind of reputation you'd expect in a system full of subject matter experts.
I'd say this training was desperately needed...only what's desperately needed is privatization. This is embarrassing, this is frustrating, this is ludicrous, and it only points up how ridiculous the entire system, the entire concept is. Take this albatross from around our necks. Abolish the PLCB.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
A Plea to the PLCB
Okay, that's six posts here in four days. I've got to ask the PLCB: would you please stop making bad decisions so I can get some paying work done?
Thanks. And get the Legislature to vote you out of existence, too. Make my life a lot easier, I tellya...
Thanks. And get the Legislature to vote you out of existence, too. Make my life a lot easier, I tellya...
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Clarification: I don't hate the people at the PLCB
I've said this before, but some comments on the recent post made me realize I should say it again:
This blog is not a personal vendetta against the employees of the PLCB.
With a few exceptions, I don't have any personal beefs with the people at the PLCB. I've had a couple of bad experiences that were directly about one person, and I've talked to some brewers and bar owners with similar stories, but most of the PLCB employees I've dealt with, at the State Stores and in Harrisburg, have been quite helpful. Well...no, that's not exactly right. Most of the State Store employees I've talked to in the store, and asked questions, didn't know squat about the products -- or were reticent about relating what they did know -- though they were perfectly competent and friendly at the counter.
Asking questions about anything other than "How much is this?" and "How do I make a special order?" and "Do you take American Express?" is generally hopeless, I'm afraid, at least in my experience. Which brings up...are State Store System employees actually forbidden to make any kind of recommendation about wines, and how far-reaching is that regulation? I haven't found anything about that in The Almighty Liquor Code. Anyone?
This blog is not a personal vendetta against the employees of the PLCB.
With a few exceptions, I don't have any personal beefs with the people at the PLCB. I've had a couple of bad experiences that were directly about one person, and I've talked to some brewers and bar owners with similar stories, but most of the PLCB employees I've dealt with, at the State Stores and in Harrisburg, have been quite helpful. Well...no, that's not exactly right. Most of the State Store employees I've talked to in the store, and asked questions, didn't know squat about the products -- or were reticent about relating what they did know -- though they were perfectly competent and friendly at the counter.
Asking questions about anything other than "How much is this?" and "How do I make a special order?" and "Do you take American Express?" is generally hopeless, I'm afraid, at least in my experience. Which brings up...are State Store System employees actually forbidden to make any kind of recommendation about wines, and how far-reaching is that regulation? I haven't found anything about that in The Almighty Liquor Code. Anyone?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
