30 years of progress – You’re kidding right?

The PLCB's "Store in a store" modernization idea: 
the Future through (the failures of) the Past

In the early 1980s the PLCB first came up with the idea of putting a State Store inside a real regular store. Boscov’s in Wilkes Barre and Joseph Horne Co., Pittsburgh were the two selected. It didn’t last as the Wilkes-Barre Store closed in late 1991 and the Pittsburgh one in 1993.

However, like most bad ideas that occur to the PLCB, the concept wouldn’t die, and on December 23, 2003 the PLCB started the first State Store inside a grocery store as part of the “modernization” of that time. Some of them are still around. The PLCB has managed to place about 16 stores within stores in over ten years of trying to convince grocery store owners of the value of this concept (and kept them in longer than the wine kiosks, but that's not saying much).

So here we are, 30 years after the original concept, ten years after the second attempt...and this kludgey idea is part of the PLCB's “modernization” plan. Thousands of grocery and retail stores ain’t buying it, and after 30 years of trying, at the rate the PLCB is getting stores in stores, it will take over 110 years to get up to just 10% of the state stores being 'more convenient' (unless they close more stores as they have been, that will make 10% easier to hit!), if you define 'convenient' as being able to walk into a different store and make a separate purchase.

Einstein's widely misquoted as saying that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. No matter who actually said it -- and we know there aren’t any Einsteins at the PLCB -- the core is solid. That's what makes the latest 'modernization' idea from Representative Gene DiGirolamo to put 400 square ft. State Stores in grocery stores...a little nuts. But his plan is endorsed by the clerks union (even if the plan essentially is a wine kiosk without the automation, though there will still be a PLCB employee there to make the sales, just like there was when the wine kiosks didn't work). This goes to show how out of touch the PLCB really is.While national trends in alcohol retail are toward larger stores, the brain trust at the PLCB wants to do the opposite. Must be that lack of retail experience, or maybe the fact that they know we can't go anywhere else that lets them make these bad decisions.

Kind of what the store in a store would look like...minus the video.

I was told by a clerk that larger towns will have more selection and that little towns will have less selection and all I could think of is that a little selection in a little town beats NO selection in a little town.  With only 600 stores there are a whole lot of little towns without a state store and there are entire counties in PA with only one state store but but they have a number grocery stores.

However...remember that the PLCB and the Union threaten that if the State's monopoly were broken up and privatized, you will only see one aisle with only the most popular items in grocery stores and they won’t have the full selection of a State Store. Now I have to ask: if one side of a 50’ (which is short for a grocery store) 4 shelf aisle is a minimum of 300 square ft and you don’t have to have room for a cashier or baskets or office or safe...how is this "store in a store" going to provide any better selection? And you still can’t buy a case or a sixpack of beer there, so the three trip problem (that ONLY Pennsylvania has) is still there. Maybe they think that 2 1/2 trips are an improvement: go to the PLCB store in a store (with separate checkout), walk to a different part of the store to the 'cafe' to buy a sixpack (with a separate checkout), and then drive to the beer distributor to get a case. Such an improvement!

Here's a thought. How about we privatize the whole damn system and make it truly easier for the consumer by having just one place to go when shopping for a legal product? How about we get the state out of subsidizing the sale of alcohol like they do milk? How about if we take the totally unqualified board out of retail, since they know nothing about it anyway (none has any experience in retail and that has been true for decades) and turn it over to people who do know retail business i.e. private businesses? How about if we allow the people the freedom of choice that most citizens who don’t live in Utah or PA enjoy? If you are a legislator, how can you not want this for your constituents?

Real Modernization IS Privatization!

Let's Kill Another Privatization Myth II

Time to debunk another myth.

"Pennsylvania has such a high DUI fatality rate because we have so many rural roads...not because the PLCB doesn't control sales of alcohol very well."

While PA does rank 6th worst in total in the US for Rural Road fatalities (2009) we rank 16th worst in DUI fatalities (2011). For fatalities per 100 million rural road miles driven PA isn't in the top ten or even top twenty but is number 23 (2009).


I had this page full of numbers and charts and math to prove the point but it comes down to this: 
Of the six border states and PA itself, PA is 5th worse in rural road death rate per 100 million miles traveled. It also turns out that PA is 5th worse in DUI fatalities.  In fact the rural road death rate and the DUI fatality rate coincide with each other for all seven states.  New Jersey has the lowest rural road and DUI fatality rate and West Virginia has the highest.  Common sense shows that the rural road fatality rate is a causation of DUI rate and not the other way around. Maybe the next excuse by the clerks will be to blame PennDot because we have too many potholes...anything but the lack of control by the PLCB

STATE	Rural Road
	Death Rate
New Jersey	1.48
Maryland	1.89
New York	1.95
Ohio	2.2
Pennsylvania	2.23
Delaware	2.41
West Virginia	2.62
(rates based on per 100 million miles traveled)

Looking at DUI fatality rates per 100,000 population we have

New Jersey - 1.7
New York - 1.9
Maryland - 2.7
Ohio - 3.0
Pennsylvania - 3.4
Delaware - 4.0
West Virginia - 4.7

I do want you to notice that the 4 states with better than PA's DUI rates all have private liquor sales and the one other control state (WV) has a worse DUI rate.

You could say that having the PLCB is killing more Pennsylvanians than would happen without it..

Gypsies, tramps, and thieves.

By now, you have heard that the leadership of the PLCB is full of crooks. We already knew that it was full of incompetence: just look at date-rape ads, buying mom vodka for mother's day, the born-to-fail wine kiosks, computer systems 158% over budget, and who knows how much more that hasn't even been exposed yet. Meanwhile, the CEO, Chairman, and Marketing Director were out having a good time when they should have been working (The board only works 22 partial days a year as it is), taking gifts and then conveniently forgetting to report them. Maybe "conveniently" isn't the right word, since we all know the PLCB isn't convenient. How about we say "on purpose" instead....yeah they forgot about $2000 golf trips on purpose, or forgot about a few thousand in free booze on purpose. That sounds more like it.

While the ethics committee has no teeth itself, they apparently thought that these good ol' boys were just  playfully forgetful....after all, what PA legislator hasn't taken a favor or two or two or eight thousand? So they got caught; just fill out the paperwork and pay what you should have paid -- nudge nudge wink wink -- and everything will be fine.

I'm not sure if our AG saw a chance to make a point, or if she really felt these people should pay more than restitution, or if it made her skin crawl that a so-called public servant would disrespect the citizens as they did, but she at least refereed the case to the Dauphin County DA, recusing herself... since her husband has a $12 million contract with the PLCB.  Nepotism isn't new in Harrisburg but this was a bit to high profile to not be noticed.

As reported in the Intelligencer:

Unfortunately, this type of corruption is a symptom of a much larger problem: the government’s complete control of the sale and distribution of wine and spirits in Pennsylvania. If government bureaucrats did not have the sole authority to determine what alcohol is sold in all the state’s liquor stores, businesses would have no incentive to bribe them with golf outings, fancy dinners and free liquor.

Hopefully the DA can give the people what they want:

And...now turn left, convicts!

Let’s Kill Another Privatization Myth

Like the movie, some supporters of the State Store System will "say anything" to keep the PLCB jobs program and prevent the citizens from having the choice, selection, and service enjoyed in the majority of states.

The latest in their series of  "Look (at our) Interesting Example," or LIE as I like to call it, is that privatization will kill craft beer, micro-distilleries, and small wineries (you pick: one, two, or all) in Pennsylvania. 

Really? Consider:

1.       What state has the largest number of craft brewers?

2.       What state has the largest number of micro-distillers?

3.       What state has the largest number of small wineries?

4.       What do these states have in common?

Not hard to figure out that California is the answer to #3, but they also lead in #1 with 316 as of last year. Question two goes to the state best known for distilling, Kentucky, with 16 micro distillers as of 2013 and California is second with 14

Both California and Kentucky have private alcohol sales - retail and wholesale. So tell me again how privatization will kill off these businesses in PA?  I’ll wait while you make up something.
.....Right. Exactly.

My next article will prove that PA rural roads have nothing to do with DUI fatalities compared to our surrounding states. Another LIE that pops up a lot.

What we don’t have….

The latest failed tactic of those who want to keep the PLCB (largely the people who work there, and the unions they belong to) is to counter the “majority of states do it this way” argument with “but only X amount have this” – pick whatever consumer feature you want that PA doesn’t have and that they don’t want us to have.

The one I like best is “only 15 states have one stop shopping for food and alcohol.” Of course, Pennsylvania isn’t one of those states and heaven forbid we try to lead the way instead of lagging behind. Truth be told is that 39 states have one stop shopping for alcohol including six of the so-called control states. Pennsylvania is a control state, and the most onerous of them all, because while only PA and Utah control wine and spirits retail, you can still buy some beer in Utah in a grocery store (by the case, if you really want!), but you can’t do that here, except in the few stores that have gone to the trouble and expense to buy a tavern license and put in a "cafe" and even then you still can't buy a case at one time.

So in in 39 states you only have to make one trip to buy a case, a six-pack, a bottle of wine and some bourbon; in 10 states you have to make 2 trips; but only in the Commonwealth...do you have to make three trips.

Perhaps if we didn’t have to waste so much time we could write our legislators and list this idiocy as yet another of the myriad of reasons to get the PLCB out of all retail and wholesale.

Privatization – the ultimate modernization.

Modernization won’t do what the consumer wants – Part III

Today we are going to look at another part of  the PLCB's plan for “modernization,” called getting "the right people.” That's what point #9 of the Executive Summary of "Proposed Statutory Amendments of the PLCB" calls it; have a look:

9) Changes to Staffing and Human Resource Management:

• Restrictions imposed by the Civil Service Act and the Administrative Code impair the PLCB’s ability to effectively manage its workforce 

• Allowing the PLCB to make employment decisions outside of Civil Service, and giving the PLCB the authority to classify or reclassify its own positions and set the compensation of all employees will give the agency the autonomy and independence needed to place the right people in the right positions at the right rates of pay. 

• The PLCB currently pays the Civil Service Commission approximately $1 million dollars per year to administer examinations for store employees.

• Appropriate employment, classification, and salary policies would be put in place to provide necessary controls and structure to the Board’s decisions.

So...to get the “right people,” they want to set different rates of pay. Obviously, it has to be a higher rate to get those people, otherwise those people would be here now. Equally obvious is that the PLCB believes that they can’t train or teach the people they have now, and currently don’t have knowledgeable staff that could fill the positions that the “right people” would fill. (They've had 80 years to work on it, but they're only admitting that failure now.)

Since these “right people” currently won’t work for the PLCB because the salary -- even though it's at the highest end of retail compensation in America -- doesn’t match their needs, who is going to pay for the increase? You know who: us, the wine buyers, the taxpayers, because we are the ones who have to cover the increased pension obligations that these “right people” will incur since they are being paid more. The PLCB portion of the pension deficit is $550 million and expected to go to $600 million by the end of this year. But that isn’t enough. All that extra money the PLCB says they will be making; some of it will have to go to pay for these “right people” and their benefits. How much will be left over for the General Fund? Anything significant?

The only benefits to this scheme are really to the PLCB and the people who work for them. We consumers still won’t get the convenience and selection found in other states even if our “right people” are wearing world class aprons.

Privatization IS Modernization.  Contact your legislators and tell them so.

News Flash! More ethics problems at the PLCB

In the "Hardly Shocking" Department...

On February 21st, an ethics complaint was filed against PLCB Director of Regulatory Affairs Jerry Waters. It is not the position of this blog to say if he is guilty or not but to report that the violation has been filed. The complaint is listed below (without the numerous pages of supporting documents).

This is yet another ethics complaint filed over the past few years on senior PLCB members, like former CEO Joe Conti, Director of Marketing Jim Short, former Board Chairman PJ Stapleton, and others.  We, the public, have been waiting for the Attorney General to release her decision for some time. Requests are met with the standard "We cannot discuss ongoing investigations" statement. There is some backroom chatter that the the violations have been referred to federal authorities; now wouldn't that be sweet?