Why does PA think the PLCB has more value than the Military?

Back in August of 2014 I wrote about the supposed value of the PLCB workforce compared to the rest of the labor market. I said, "One can get an idea of how society values a profession by the compensation given." It's a fundamental truth of how the free market works...except in Pennsylvania, where the Legislature has denied reality for decades and inflated the value of PLCB workers to an extreme.

What do I mean? Try this. According to testimony at the State Senate Appropriations Committee meeting of 2 March 2017, the average value of benefits for a full time PLCB employee is 93.6% of salary; so for example, the value of benefits for a clerk making $30,000 a year would be 93.6% of their salary ($28,800), so their total compensation would be $58,800.

Now, for the actual average of a Liquor Store Clerk 2, that's a total of $64,060 in salary and benefits. Here's the rub. Compare that to a US Army Sergeant (E5) with six years in service, who these days may even have a couple combat tours under their belt: $55,233. (If you want to check my math...see below.*)

Really? Why are liquor store clerks worth about $9,000 a year more than combat infantrymen to the state of Pennsylvania? Is their job more stressful?  Do they work longer hours? Do they perform a greater service to the citizens?

I don't know who made this shirt but I want one**.

Of course, you can make this comparison with other jobs, and if you saw compensation like that the prices would probably be higher at that store or firm...but the State isn't forcing you to buy products from that person in that place under penalty of law. You have choices in the free market: you don't have to buy that product, and you don't HAVE to shop in that store. You don't HAVE to support a monopoly. But you do...if you're buying wine in Pennsylvania. (Yes, yes, with the exception of Pennsylvania-made wines bought direct, right.)

So the next time you have to go to the State Store, or have to settle for something because the bureaucrats in Harrisburg decided not to sell the item you wanted in their monopoly system, and they don't allow you to go anywhere else, stop for a moment. Ask yourself if maybe the state should be funding Veteran's care with the same zeal they fund state store clerks.

Privatization fixes that.


*pennwatch.pa.gov lists everybody and their salary who works for the state including those in the PLCB. Search under Liquor Control Board for Agency Name, then select Liquor Store Clerk 2 under the Positions drop-down menu in the results. There are 22 pages of data: add up the individual salaries, divide by the number of them to get an average, and then multiply that result by 1.963 to get the total of the average salary and benefits. For those working for Uncle Sam it is a bit easier.  They do it for you on this site (I used the PLCB HQ in Harrisburg zip code). I've just gone ahead and done the math on the PLCB compensation for you, but you can check my work.

** Buy the T-Shirt here!

Almighty Liquor Code gets bent for the DNC

It's real and it's happening: the Democratic National Convention got the liquor code exemptions it wanted (and it's in place for any future "national event," which apparently must be a political convention). The details were reported by Angela Couloumbis in this morning's Inquirer. 

What's the upshot? Well, the DNC will pay $5,000 -- once -- to the PLCB, and then proceed to grant the exemptions to whatever premises it wants, licensed or unlicensed. (I'd link to the application, but hey, they just shut it down. Sorry. The DNC is saying they will put out a list of exempted premises by week's end.)

The exemptions include staying open later than 2 AM, and that's the one everyone's fixated on. It's been reported that the licensed areas (existing licensees, bars, plazas, whatever the DNC wants) can stay open till 4, but the law doesn't actually stipulate that; it's up to the Board, who apparently have delegated all that to the DNC, who have said '4 AM, please.' Pretty good spend of $5,000, really, to get licensing authority in Philly for four days.

And then there's this. (Quoting from the Inky story linked above, and as usual, emphasis is added.)

The reprieve also allows businesses to circumvent the costly requirement that all wine and liquor be purchased from the state-run wine and spirits stores, which automatically mark up products they sell and add various taxes.
Event organizers and others said much of the liquor used during conventions and other big events is donated. And during this year's Democratic convention, other states' delegations might want to host a reception featuring their hometown alcohol.

That's the one that hurts. It's a special exemption from having to get booze from the PLCB. They can bring it in without paying taxes, without paying the markup, without paying the bottle or handling fees, and of course, without having to deal with the ham-handed clowns at the PLCB. Because, you know: they want the stuff to actually be there when they need it. 

Why does it hurt? It's not the revenue, though God knows, we could use it, and the DNC's got plenty. It's the unvarnished unfairness of it. We have to put up with this antiquated, creaky, anti-customer monopoly 24/7/365...but when the politicians come to town, well, loosen up the laws for them, because they deserve a little normalcy, and we don't want them to go home and tell their friends how backwards and boneheaded and provincial Pennsylvania is compared to the modern liquor laws in, say, Indiana.

It also hurts because while the PLCB is crying that it's going to take MONTHS to deal with adding the permission for grocery stores with beer licenses to also sell up to four bottles of wine per transaction -- let me take a crack at it, it ain't THAT hard -- this shit got done in a matter of days. DAYS. And bringing in booze that's not coming through the PLCB certainly seems like a bigger deal. Unless it's for your buddies. 

This is the Legislature admitting that our liquor system sucks. And this is the Legislature admitting that they don't have the guts to put an end to it. Instead, they're nibbling around the edges, and hoping like hell that we'll take our miserable 4-bottles-of-wine-in-selected-stores and go away. 

Don't be a dumb animal. Don't put up with what we have. We ARE all equal, and we ALL deserve to be free of the State Store System. PRIVATIZE.

How to Lie Spin like the House Democratic Caucus

Way back on May 17th of this year, which qualifies as ancient history in political terms, I wrote to the Pennsylvania House Democratic Caucus to ask them if they would vote for a bill that gives special treatment to the Democratic National convention above that of the citizens of the state; in other words, the proposal to allow bars in Philly hosting DNC events to bring booze in through non-PLCB channels. Their reply:

"I fully expect the caucus to be fully against any relaxation of PA liquor laws while the Democratic Convention is in Philly. You need to treat all visitors as you do the citizens."

Bill must be from Pennsylvania; who knew?

Well...someone must have forgotten to tell the members in the House Appropriations Committee, since every Democratic member voted for it.

Given a second chance, the bill was then voted on by the House Liquor Control Committee. No Democrat voted against it, but there were four who chose not to vote at all; a clear vote of conscience (or else they were at lunch).

And Vote Number Three, the House Rules Committee? Once again, all the Democrats voted for it.

The last chance to actually do what the Caucus "fully expected" that they would do was the full vote of the House. And again, EVERY Democrat voted for it. At least 41 Republicans voted against. Either the Democratic Caucus has no influence on the Democrats, or they didn't know what they were talking about or flat-out lied, or they thought they had an out.

Because while the DNC will get special treatment, it's okay, because now it is a "National Event License" (that the PLCB makes money off of), instead of just special treatment for the Democrats. Only guess who are the only groups that qualify: the Republican National Convention, or the Democratic National Convention! Section 408.17 page 6 line 25: National Event Permit.--(a) Upon  application of the chief executive of a national political party conducting its national convention in this Commonwealth..."  I guess the Libertarians or the Greens could apply, but I don't know if the PLCB would consider them national parties. Probably not.

In any case, instead of trying to slide a one time special use bill that places the political class temporarily above the citizens, they decided to say screw it, let's make it a law that officially places the political class above the citizens any time we want. Now the Republicans are at fault too, although they didn't vote like herd animals to make you second class citizens in your own state. So when election time comes around remember who officially thinks they are better than you are...and who thinks that they represent you.

The PLCB enters the lottery business

Well, it is getting to be that time of year when the PLCB decides what the "most fair" way is to divvy up limited bottles. Last year it was Stacy Kriedeman saying that selling the products online is the most fair method. This year we get Board Chairman Tim Holden presenting a new "most fair," saying "In order to ensure that all consumers interested in a particular high-demand product have a fair chance to purchase the product, we have developed a lottery system for our most limited products.” 

Doesn't that mean people haven't had a fair chance in the past? Maybe it just means that the contractor they hired to do this gets to be the fall guy if it tanks. and then PLCB can claim it wasn't their fault. Just like the Oracle roll out disaster; they don't have the expertise to do it in-house without screwing it up. (I wrote about what I thought the system should look like at the end of last July. They didn't take all my advice so we'll see what happens.)

But is this new most fair method...even fair at all? There are the questions of legality about selling only to a PA resident. The state already restrains trade for their own citizens -- the police-enforced monopoly prohibits us from buying booze anywhere but in Pennsylvania -- but can they restrain trade to non-Pennsylvania citizens? Does or does it not violate Federal statute and will somebody invest enough to find out?  Can they have two systems, in which they allow non-residents to buy alcohol on their website, but refuse to sell these limited items to them at the same time?  What about the military personnel who can maintain the state as their residence but obviously don't have all their bills sent here. State-sponsored discrimination of the very people who are defending the state and country? How cool is that, PLCB?

The only way you will get this set in PA
 is if you copy this picture

Then there are people who own property and pay taxes to PA but don't live here. Is this another benefit of paying your taxes to support a government agency that couldn't care less about you? (I don't want to hear that crap about no tax dollars are used to run the PLCB. As long as the taxpayers are on the hook for over $600 million in pension and medical debt, as long as we have no choice on where to buy our booze, ALL PLCB money is taxpayer money.)

So on the 13th we get to see the first shakedown of the new system, when 24 bottles of some Buffalo Trace Experimental bottles are offered in two lotteries of 12 each (25% of which — 3 bottles of each! — is reserved for a separate licensee lottery). I'm sure the demand level will be close to what the Antique Collection or Pappy frenzy is and will be a real test of their system.

Of course, don't expect to get a flight of the full set of Pappy releases, or a complete BTAC collection. That's impossible in the "most fair" world of the PLCB. 

Feel safe, Pennsylvania: the Keystone Kops are on the job!

The BLCE recently covered itself in glory again by arresting someone who was looking to resell a bottle of Pappy Van Winkle bourbon, and by shutting down an alleged speakeasy operating in an American Legion post in Roaring Spring, near Altoona.

Eh? Buying better booze in Delaware, you say? We're on it!

I understand that — by the letter of the law — neither of these things are legal in Pennsylvania, but you can tell when a bad law is in place by the lack of enforcement. Tracking down one "whiskey flipper" on Craigslist (when hundreds of them are driving the high cost of Pappy), or closing down a rural veteran's hall because they were selling sixpacks and highballs (in a town with NO current bar licenses; though you could go up the road to the U.S. Hotel in Hollidaysburg, which I highly recommend) is not really doing anything to make the citizenry safer. Do you think some 18 year old kid was going to shell out $800 just to get a bottle of booze for the weekend, or that the American Legion was selling 6 packs out the back door to high schoolers?  I seem to remember PLCB employees selling things out of the back door in Philly, but that place wasn't closed down, was it?

The BLCE at least used to put up a front like they were doing their job, with over 200 arrests per year for illegal importation; now it is just a few poor slobs who get made an example of. Do you think it is because they have stemmed the tide of people coming in from Delaware with bottles in their trunk? Maybe it is just easier for them to rely on tips so they know where to look (sure makes it easier for someone to rat out an enemy and get them in trouble).

Arresting people for selling booze that the incompetents at the PLCB don't, won't and can't supply to the people of the state? They should give them medals, they're doing a public service! Just because the State Store System doesn't have it, doesn't mean that we don't want it. If the PLCB is doing such a great job, and their prices are so competitive, then it shouldn't matter what people bring in, because as many or more would be shopping here and not across the border.

The mere fact that PA's border bleed is one of the largest in the country indicates that we don't have the best selection, we don't have the best service, we don't have the best prices, we don't have the best stores and we certainly don't have the best run system that can respond to what the public wants. It's not even the best control state system; New Hampshire kicks our ass in customer service and cool stuff for its citizens (and much of the rest of New England; their prices are better, too.) In short, the PLCB and its State Police-run enforcement arm, the BLCE, are only protecting their own incompetence and lack of ability.

With tens of thousands of people crossing the border with out of state liquor and thousands going to BYOB restaurants with bottles not bought at state stores, maybe the BLCE needs a bigger tip to get them to spring into action. So here it is, our public service to help out the Police-Enforced Monopoly.  People buy liquor and/or wine at Total Wine, Moore Brothers, Joe Canal's, Benash, Wine Legend and even Wegmans and Shop Rite, and bring it back to Pennsylvania because — overall — the price, selection, service and convenience is better in New Jersey.

Now that you have a tip, go and infiltrate the state of New Jersey. Make it fair, arrest every citizen of the Commonwealth you see — including us if you see us, that's fair (and would make great blogfodder!) — and see what happens when that starts to hit the newspapers, social media, airwaves...and legislators' inboxes. Bring it on, BLCE, let's enforce the hell out of those laws and really let Pennsylvanians enjoy control as it should be enjoyed. To paraphrase the great Bard of Baltimore (and free liquor patriot) H.L. Mencken: Liquor control is the theory that bureaucrats know what's best for the common people, and should give it to them good and hard.

Oh, by the way...Pennsylvanians are bringing booze home from Delaware and Maryland, too. So get on it.

We think you know what that will lead to. Abolish the PLCB, make it about regulations and not retail, and rewrite the code to best serve what the people in 2015 want...not what one man in 1933 wanted.

Selling Allocated Van Winkle Whiskeys Online is the "Most Fair" Method. Really?

Stacey Kreideman, the PLCB's spokesperson, told us that the most "fair" way for the agency to sell their allotment of relatively rare and highly desired Pappy Van Winkle whiskeys was to put them up for sale all at once, online, with no warning but an email to say "We got 'em, time to buy!" So let's look at how much, if any, thought was put into that statement. After all the PLCB has to serve ALL the population: we can't legally go anywhere else.

Pennsylvania's population is about 12.9 million.  Of that about 3 million are under 21, leaving 9.9 million adults who can legally buy liquor. About 800,000 people work in non-management manufacturing, mining, and construction, mostly during the day, so they aren't  -- can't be! -- looking to get twitter blasts in the middle of the work day.  That takes our number down to 9.1 million who may have the time, internet connection, and desire to buy a bottle on line.

Service jobs make up the largest part of PA workers, almost 4.5 million of them.  Even after you take out the IT folks, real estate and "professional business services" that still leaves 3.4 million working in retail, warehouses, restaurants, utilities, and all other manner of service jobs. Most of those people aren't responding to every tweet and email in the middle of work either. Down to 5.7 million

Health Services is another large employer with about 1.2 million employees. Take out the night shift, and the administrators and other desk jockeys, and that is near 800,000 who are actually at work doing something when the PLCB sends out it's email blast. Down to 4.9 million now: half of the population that will never get a shot at the PLCB's rigged Van Winkle race.

Drop another 500,000 for Leisure and Hospitality workers - wait staff, cooks, busboys, hostesses, hotel workers etc., etc. Another 200,000 for government workers like road crews, maintenance, military, police, firemen, state store clerks (they're certainly not checking Twitter; they're too busy shoveling coal into their 1930s-era POS system) and what have you, and at least another 100,000 for non-traditional services, the number drops to 4.1 million or less.

So how fair is it when over 60% of your buying population can't buy what you are selling? Putting it all on sale at 5 AM would be far more "fair" to the majority of buyers, since most could actually try to get on the crashing PLCB website. Ahh, but then the PLCB workers in Harrisburg would have to get up early and actually try to do something for the people they work for. Can't have that, now can we?

I originally made the following up, as a joke, but it turns out to be more true than I thought. "It's the most fair to everyone that works behind a desk" said the PLCB. "If you have one of those laboring jobs we really don't care about you and you shouldn't be buying $100 bottles of whiskey. Our clerks will tell you so." 

The PLCB's online 'store' needs a new motto. Here's a proposal: "We don't deal with the public, we make the public deal with us!"







All the numbers come from the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry website minus an estimated 10% for management

Credit where it's due: good service at Good Old Store #0909

Because I don't lie about reality like the PLCB Partisans... I just got some of the very best service I've ever had at Good Old Store #0909 here in Newtown. I had to get a quick couple bottles for a late dinner decision -- no time to run to Jersey! -- so I grabbed some prosecco (easy enough, though the sign for the section said "Champagne!"), picked up a big bottle of cheap cabernet (impulse buy), and then...realized I don't really know white wine outside of sauvignon blanc, riesling, and gewürztraminer.

So I see this younger woman in a clerk apron who I'd never seen there before, and I asked her: I don't really drink much white wine, and I need some dry white for a recipe; any advice? She put down what she was stocking and said "Sure!" (1st plus), and then asked me what I was cooking (2nd plus). I told her, and she said that just about any pinot grigio would do, and the Barefoot's on sale for $6. Done. (And please don't judge me -- or her -- about the Barefoot: I'm just deglazing a pan, and then we'll probably drink it as spritzers while sitting by the firepit. I drink better whiskey than you. Probably. Whatever.)

She was pleasant about it too, a lot more pleasant than I've encountered there before. The guy at the register was, I think, a trainee, or maybe the manager was just hovering over him to be a jerk. He got the stuff done, and I was out.

Like I keep saying: if they delivered better service, I wouldn't be making such a fuss about privatization. If they weren't so dead-set on standardized selection, I wouldn't be making such a fuss about privatization.

But...they generally don't, they certainly are, so I am.

WASHINGTON STATE GOES PRIVATE!

Yesterday, Washington State voters resoundingly voted YES (looking like over 60% in favor) to privatize the state's liquor wholesale and retail operations. All liquor sales in the state will be private by June 1, 2012. Costco spent about $20 million supporting Prop. 1183 (for privatization), a spend that has been smeared as "buying the election" by anti-1183 groups. This ignores the fact that the Wine & Spirits Wholesalers Association spent over $12 million trying to defeat it. So...don't accuse the winner of "buying the election" when what really happened is that you were trying to buy it...and got outbid.

So, congratulations to the people of Washington on your wise choice and your victory! And...what's it mean for us? This definitely puts an intangible momentum behind privatization in PA; another state did it, and the sky hasn't fallen in. But tactically? It doesn't mean much. We don't have a Costco willing to step up and fund a campaign for privatization...and even if we did, it's not as simple as that. Because we have to work with the Legislature, and they've been thwarting the public's will on this for years.

Think about it. The polls consistently show the voting public in favor of privatization by a 2:1 margin, yet the Legislature still argues over whether they should even be thinking about it. They twiddle and diddle and talk about the PLCB's "modernization" plans, and the revenue, and the union, and THE CHILDREN!!!!! All red herrings. The People want the State out of the booze business. Very simple. Get the hell to work on it.

Why don't they? Well, the same polls show that only 17% of voters consider this an important issue. I'll grant that, and compared to some others, it's certainly not as important. On the other hand, the heavy lifting has already been done: there are a number of plans out there, some over ten years old, to privatize. Pick one, and do it. It's not controversial if 65% of Pennsylvanians are in favor of it.

Why else? Maybe because of the revenue coming in from our police-enforced monopoly. Prices at the State Store System aren't THAT much out of line with surrounding states -- I've never said that prices were a major issue, although selection and service ARE -- but that's because the PLCB has been willing to take a hit on profits (the governor's PFM report on privatization shows profits steadily declining; more on that soon) to keep their costs high. That's right, I said willing to take a hit on profits to keep their costs high. Because they're a bureaucracy staffed by a union, not a private company, they don't mind not being profitable (according to that PFM report, over half the PLCB's stores are not profitable), as long as they keep their jobs.

Why are the profits declining? So they can stay somewhat competitive while continuing to collect Pennsylvania's outrageously high wine and liquor taxes. But send that private, and the stiff taxes will be exposed. This is the ugly underbelly of the PLCB's State Store System: we pay more than other states on wine and liquor excise taxes: a whole lot more (jump to the link, then scroll down and take a look at the last three tables).

So we need to tell our legislators that when they take this system private, they need to take that burden off our backs and spread it around in a more fair and equitable manner. Or...pick it up in a Marcellus Shale tax of some kind...which it looks like they're already thinking about. Push for that. Because otherwise some genius is going to look at upping the beer tax, and we don't want that!

A good day for Washington State. With luck, a good beginning for Pennsylvania. Keep the ball rolling!

TableLeaf: so much money for another bad idea

Back in 2009, we heard rumors that the PLCB was considering changing the name on the State Store System. They were spending a lot of money on it, too: $3.7 million, which may seem a bit exorbitant, considering you're talking about changing the name on a Police-Enforced Monopoly retail system. I mean, what were we going to do...buy our booze at the State Store 10 miles away instead? (Or, if you live in, say, Potter County, at the State Store 110 miles away?) What a waste: why does the State Store even bother? We are forbidden by law to buy booze anywhere else. What the hell do they care?

After spending the money (with a California-based firm, thanks so much, because Pennsylvania firms are all staffed by dopes, apparently), the best they could come up with was "Table Leaf." Which means...what, exactly? Anything to do with the best-selling vodka (Jacquin's Royale, very high-end), or the best-selling wine (Sutter Home White Zin, the plonker's choice)? No, not much to do with anything, and I was waiting to crucify them when they plastered that on the front.

Well, unfortunately, they came to their senses, and just call the State Stores "Fine Wine and Good Spirits." Dopey, right? Still, they'd spent all that money coming up with "Table Leaf," so they stuck it to another brilliant program: a house brand wine. They've recently rolled out TableLeaf Merlot, Cabernet Sauvignon, and Chardonnay. (Note that there seems to be some disagreement on whether it's "TableLeaf" or "Table Leaf." Typical.)


So...the PLCB loves its suppliers so much that they've decided to go into competition against them! They're not satisfied with swinging their ponderous regulatory and monopoly weight against beer retailers;* they're going to use it against winemakers too!

Think about it, say you're Cycles Gladiator Cabernet Sauvignon, a nice wine we've bought for BYO dinners. You're on the shelf at the State Store System for $9.99, a good price. So now, your retailer, wholesaler, and regulator suddenly throws in their own brand, in direct competition, at $8.99...oh, and by the way, it shows up as an alternative selection every time you look at a cabernet sauvignon on the PLCB website, and you know damned well every clerk knows about it when people ask for a cab. I'd feel hard done by, but what are you going to say? You going to complain to your regulator? Not likely.

Kinda good to see the PLCB acting like the dominating, monopolistic SOBs they actually are, you know? This is government directly undercutting private business by manipulating their law-granted, police-enforced monopoly status. Is this fair? Privatize!



*Remember Dominic Origlio's line from the beer registration fiasco hearings?  "I would be remiss without mentioning what I believe is the underlying cause of these regulatory and enforcement problems. Pennsylvania's beer industry is regulated by its competitor -- the Liquor Control Board, a state run corporation which sells wine and liquor."

State Store Stings: a confirmation

As a follow-up to my previous post on whether or not the BLCE ever does "stings" using underage purchasers in the State Stores...I have a partial answer. I wrote to the BLCE and the PLCB about the issue, and just heard back from Stacey Witalec, Director of External Affairs at the PLCB (who has, by the way, been extremely helpful and pleasant over the past month or so; quite welcome). Here's what she had to say.

I checked in with BLCE on this for you and because our stores are not licensed establishments, BLCE does not perform compliance checks in them.

She's going to follow up and check on how many times there have been "issues" at the stores on this and get back to me, but for now...looks like a definitive answer: no, the Bureau of Liquor Control Enforcement does not treat the State Stores like they do private licensed establishments. Which would seem to take a LOT of the wind out of the "we don't serve underage; privatization would mean chaos" anti-privatization argument.

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.

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.

Yes, They Will Bust You For It

Got this from the Towanda Daily Review.

Two charged by PLCB
Two people from Sayre were cited by the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board recently on a charge of improperly bringing alcoholic beverages into the state. According to information provided by the PLCB, David Cole, 29, and Brenda Williams, 42, were cited for purchasing alcoholic beverages out of state, and not following proper protocol for bringing alcoholic beverages into Pennsylvania. Conviction for such a summary offense, according to the PLCB, is a $25 fine, plus the cost of prosecution.

You gotta figure this was an egregious offense. $25 plus costs? That was worth it. It's such a ridiculous offense: Sayre sits right on the NY border. This is like prosecuting someone in Bethlehem for buying beer in Allentown.

What really irks me is that the PLCB will do nothing, nothing at all, if someone sells me a bottle of corked wine or skunked beer. But let me buy one bottle of rotgut wine in New Jersey, and it's a summary offense.

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.

Conti Speaks!

Interesting interview with Joe "CEO" Conti on the new Grub Street Philadelphia site. Kirsten Henri asked him about the "wine boutique" concept, and gets some answers that just leave you slack-jawed. For instance, the boutiques are "picked" by putting ads in local newspapers, and waiting for replies, a charmingly innocent way of making sure you get the response you want while remaining "courtesy contract legal." And a great exchange here:

Conti: ...we weren't looking to partner with restaurants, we were looking to partner with high-end gourmet food stores.

Henri: Maybe it's confusing because your first partner, Jose Garces, is known for being a restaurateur, not a grocer. [Score!]

Conti: Jose basically was doing this market in the Western Union building. When he heard we were placing boutiques, he called us.

Clearly Garces reads the real estate ads in the local papers; what, in the "Monopoly Opportunities for Advantage Available" section?

But this is my favorite:

Henri: Are you surprised some restaurateurs are bent out of shape?

Conti: How can I be diplomatic here? [I assume this means, "How can I insult your intelligence and get away with it?"] I'm from a restaurant family. I like to tease I'm a bartender by birth. My father was president of the National Restaurant Association. [This, BTW, is essentially Conti's self-stated qualification for his current position: heredity.] Yes, I was surprised. It's a very old-fashioned, parochial view of the restaurant market. Decades ago we realized the hospitality industry survives best when there are a number of options for the consumer.

Didja see that last line? "...the hospitality industry survives best when there are a number of options for the consumer." Guess that doesn't apply to retail wine and spirits sales!

These ridiculous ideas only point up how ill-suited state-owned monopoly booze sales are to modern commerce. These "boutiques" are clearly an unfair advantage to stores that are selected on the basis of personal choice by unelected, unregulated bureaucrats. The wine kiosks are a bumbling circumvention of supermarket sales.

Stop making it so hard! Privatization would fix all of this, increase jobs, continue the collection of taxes, and put an end to the embarrassing parade of corrup -- er, "the appearance of a possible conflict of interest." The Legislature needs to put an end to this farce, and now would be a great time.

PLCB Playing Favorites in Philly

Philadelphia Magazine has a "Web Original Article" up about a simply amazing new PLCB initiative -- that's right, another one -- that has jaws dropping all over Philly. Restaurateurs' jaws, that is, at the stunning favoritism and clueless unfairness it demonstrates. Check this:

José Garces' ... new something involves the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board. That’s right — as part of a wider effort to rebrand its image, the PLCB will be pairing up with notable chefs and restaurateurs to open a handful of boutique wine stores, aiming to give oenophiles a more personal experience. (The Philadelphia location will be the first.) The specialty stores, whose inventories will include a few hundred bottles of wines not available in traditional Wine & Spirits stores, will hold tasting events and have a highly trained staff to help you find that perfect Pinot.

Let's leave aside the easy joke -- that the "highly trained staff" must be the ones who already know how to say "Hello!" and "Thank you!" -- and take a look at this. Suppose you're a Center City restaurant owner, a similar cafe-type joint known for their wine selection: Tria, for instance, since that's the only wine bar kind of place I've ever been to in Philly (disclosure: I have taught three classes at Tria's Fermentation School). How do you feel about the PLCB opening a take-out store inside a competitor's restaurant -- bad enough already, when wine take-out is illegal for you -- that sells wines "not available in traditional Wine & Spirits stores," and the PLCB staff is going to hold tasting events for those take-out wines right there in that other restaurant? I'd feel pretty damned hard done by.

This is a government agency. If Pennsylvania was not a control state, and it was a private business doing this -- Moore Brothers, for instance, and wouldn't it be a happy freakin' day if the PLCB were to go away and Moore Brothers could come to Center City? (disclosure: I have done no business whatsoever with Moore Brothers, they don't know me from Adam) -- hey, no problem! Actually, given the arcane and pointless circumlocutions of liquor law across the country, it would probably be a huge problem getting it licensed, but ethically there's no problem. It's two businesses reaching an agreement, and Garces would either be paying Moore Brothers for the exclusivity or they'd be paying him for the floor space, depending on who got the jump on who. And if Jon Myerow at Tria wanted to cut a similar deal with Canal's, he could.

But the PLCB is a government agency with monopoly retail power. Myerow can't just find another company to make a deal with, or do it himself, because that's illegal. Illegal! He's got to go to the PLCB, hat in hand, and beg to be part of this new program. As would the folks at Chick's, or Southwark, or DiBruno Brothers, or any number of wine-friendly cafes and restaurants.

And the PLCB will either grant them the boon or not, according to their own agenda. A government agency that has an ironclad monopoly on retail sales has no right deciding to essentially grant that right to retail to one business and refuse it to another. The PLCB is totally out of touch with reality. They are "acting like a business" when they aren't a business. They are a 'business' with whom it is illegal to compete, a 'business' with the full force of government enforcement and coercion behind them, a 'business' that can interpret the law to suit themselves without fear of contradiction.

I'm going to have to quote Buddy "I married a PLCB manager" Hobart to express what I feel about this new initiative. "What I say to the skeptical," said Buddy Hobart, president of Solutions 21, "to those of us in the world who believe we've arrived and don't need to improve: Look up the word arrogant in the dictionary." When you find that page, I believe you'll find the PLCB logo next to that definition.

Two notes at the end. First, I'm not pissed at José Garces, not in the least. I don't blame him for doing this, it's a sweet deal, and he would have been a fool not to take the PLCB up on it. And I do look forward to the opening of his new Village Whiskey, which is, yes, a whiskey bar, coming soon, probably May, at 20th and Sansom.

And of course, I'm shocked -- shocked, I tell you! -- that PhillyMag would run this story without a word about how this might unfairly impact other city businesses. What's that you say? Why yes, that's the same PhillyMag that co-sponsors the Philadelphia Whiskey Festival with the PLCB (which also runs one of these mini-stores right at the festival, while not allowing brewers to sell at beer festivals), and not a word of disclosure in the story. Good separation of advertorial and editising departments there.