Free Market or Socialist PLCB - who makes jobs?

The Legislature continues to ignore the drag the PLCB puts on the economy. Every place that has fully privatized has tripled employment in the industry. A side benefit is that a free market allows entrepreneurs to open businesses that a controlled market, by its very nature, limits. Since over a third of the PLCB is already part-time the claim of losing 5,000 "family sustaining" jobs from privatization is blatantly false.

Just one example of that limitation in jobs is craft distilleries. In 2012, the first year that limited distillery licenses were allowed — years behind other states — Pennsylvania had four. Now, four years later, the state has about 50. In contrast, Washington State — with about half the population — has 86 (as of mid-July). Since privatization of the state liquor monopoly in 2012, Washington has added 51 distilleries, added jobs, added tax base. Slow old Pennsylvania has added 50 in the same amount of time — with twice the market, and our proximity to big markets in New Jersey, New York, Ohio, and Maryland — an increase that should be well over 100, based on population ratios.

So what is holding things up? The PLCB's friends in the Legislature and the Almighty Liquor Code, of course. How many jobs, how much investment and taxes has the state lost because of the PLCB? Far more than the heavy hand has allowed in. What are we afraid of? Success? Money? Tax revenue?

While ACT 39 has added a few jobs (mostly in the PLCB hiring consultants to figure out how to implement it), there hasn't been the boon in employment full privatization would bring. No new warehouse jobs (union jobs!) that would be created by the formation of new distributors, because the state still controls wholesale. No new delivery jobs (more union jobs!) trucking wine and spirits to new stores, because there are no new stores, and besides, for the most part the PLCB doesn't deliver anyway. No new sales jobs because there still aren't any new stores. Poorer service because while private stores depend on good service for return customers, the state stores know you can't go anywhere else. Less selection because the PLCBureaucrats in Harrisburg are selecting the shelf stock for every single store for the entire state, instead of customer requests and demand, new product promotion, and American-style competition like how EVERYTHING ELSE  is sold in retail.

While the PLCB is a jobs program, it isn't a jobs program that benefits the citizens overall, just the lucky winners at the State Stores and warehouses. It benefits them by denying and disrupting the normal opportunity and jobs found in free and open markets.

If the Pennsylvania State Store System were really all that good...Well, think about it. 

• They wouldn't be afraid of competition. 
• Other places would be trying to emulate our system. What a ridiculous concept! 
• The citizens wouldn't want change. They do.
• Pricing would reflect buying power. Flexible pricing makes sure it doesn't.
• Qualified people with industry experience would be making business decisions, not political hacks. 
• People would come into Pennsylvania to buy; instead the state has the largest alcohol sales border bleed in the country.

We aren't safer, we aren't better served, and even with McIlhinney's four-bottle folly, we aren't satisfied. The only way to really satisfy the consumer is with a free market, not a closed system.

PRIVATIZE.

What happens when you "Free the Market" ?

When you don't have a police enforced state monopoly that needs to be "loosened up" for the Democratic convention you have this:

While not a real ad from Total Wine it is the reality of the difference between PA and the freedoms enjoyed by most states. The PLCB is why we can't have this. The PLCB is why we don't have the selection other places enjoy. The PLCB is why we will never have the convenience wanted by the majority of the citizens. Do you really think that being able to buy 4 bottles from a bar (since 95% of the licensed prerequisite places are bars) is the same as having 2400 real liquor stores?  And the PLCB is why we will never have the service found in stores that specialize where the owners livelihood depends on the customer coming back not because they have nowhere else they can go but because they want too.

In real stores the customer is king, not the clerks. Privatize.

Bare minimum is too much customer service for Pittsburgh state store

PLCB Employee Customer Service Briefing

According to a few sources the retail customers -- the taverns and restaurants -- who are forced to buy their booze at store #0247 (5956 Centre Ave, Ste 201, Pittsburgh) are being "coddled" too much.and have the gall to expect the same level of service that is given by free market (or what we call "regular" or "non-monopoly") stores or other vendors. Never mind that almost every other vendor a business has to deal with will deliver: the state stores don't. One would at least expect that all the time they save by not delivering could be put to use fixing any problems that may occur in licensee orders. Don't bet on it.

While telephone orders are still taken, most licensees use the computer automated system to place their orders, thus removing most chances for human error. Shortly, it will be mandated to be all computer driven by LOOP (Liquor Order Online Program if I remember correctly) so any mistakes from phone orders will be gone. But the licensee may still order the wrong thing, and the State Store may put the wrong product in the box, or order the wrong item from the vendor. Switching out a wrong item in the box is more of a pain than a problem, but when the wrong item is ordered, it may take weeks to straighten out.  It can be even more difficult because there are items offered to the licensees that are not available to the public, so they're not on the shelf somewhere else, where they could be pulled to correct the order.  (Yeah, that's right: the PLCB not only offers limited selection to you and I, they don't even offer us everything they have!)

Given the frustration waiting that long must create, sometimes the licensee involves the vendor, through the state store, to help out.  That seems to be too helpful for the manager at store 0247, so now "...employees are no longer allowed to call the vendor when they send the wrong product." That's according to Richard Swartz, a Pittsburgh bartender who's involved in this ridiculous pissing contest.

Ryan Eberlein, another licensee customer of store 0247, backs up what Richard said, "This is my store and I know this manager, and it's no joke." He added, "Also, let's understand the premise of this relationship... if the state accepts and sells the wrong product -- doing the only thing required of them, incorrectly -- we have to bring it to their attention and wait weeks to months to get it resolved." He continues, "Only a cartel can treat its customer with such disdain and disrespect. Only a monopoly can say basic customer service is too much."

Now in a normal state with normal liquor retail, Ryan could find a store that not only treats him better, but also helps resolve any problems he may have. Not to mention, they'd deliver, saving him time to do other things to help his business. Under the State Store System, he doesn't have that choice. All the stores are the same, all the products are the same, the lack of delivery is the same -- everything is decided by Harrisburg, where the only interest is for doing the minimum amount required to save their jobs, not to satisfy the consumer. Are there exceptions, clerks and bureaucrats who do try to stem this sluggish tide of indifference? Of course...and they are just that: exceptions.

We'd like to thank Ryan and Richard for speaking up, as the PLCB is well-known among licensees for practicing a petty and vindictive retaliation when their idiocy is pointed out. If that happens, we encourage them to report it. 

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.

A recent State Store experience

Forgot to tell you about this one. We had a nice bottle of wine back in the spring, an Alma Negra Bonarda Malbec, a dark Argentine red. It was so good I remembered it, and come December, when we were shopping for Christmas presents, I wanted to get a bottle for someone (and a couple for myself). I went to the State Store here in Newtown, and started looking.

No luck, so I whipped out the iPhone, and went to the PLCB's product search website to see if they even had it. They did, and when I drilled down further, I found that the local store (good old Store #0909!) had -- at that time -- 126 bottles of it. Couldn't find it in the Argentine section. So, against my better judgment, I asked a clerk. I'm looking for an Argentine Malbec called Alma Negra, I said (I'll admit my ignorance: I didn't know that Bonarda was a varietal. Malbec was all I recognized), could you help me find it? His very first words were "Oh, no, we don't have anything by that name." Very helpful!

Luckily, I still had the iPhone out, and I told him, Actually, the LCB website says you have 126 bottles of it! Maybe it's up front; it's a Chairman's Selection. And the guy says, "Oh, no, that's not a Chairman's Selection. We don't have any Argentine Malbecs as Chairman's." I was stunned, a bit, but rallied: Yes, it is, it says so right on your website. And I went towards the front of the store -- and almost tripped over the stuff. It was sitting in the middle of an aisle (among the domestics, far from the Argentina section...), four cases of it topped by an open case, with a Chairman's Selection sign on it.

Here it is, I said brightly, thanks! And he comes up, picks up the bottle, and points to the label, and says, "Oh, you see: it's a blend. It's not a Malbec." So I grinned, and said, You're right, I'm sorry. What else was I going to do? I was really, really sorry that I had to buy wine from people who clearly knew nothing about their stock -- and the guy's been working there for years -- and couldn't care less about helping a customer find a product.

See, this is why I grit my teeth when I read letters to the editor and comments on blogs where people talk about the wonderful service they get at the State Stores. Because while I'm sure there are at least some SS clerks out there who really want to help, and really know the products (there was a younger guy at #0909 who actually knew something about whiskey, although he was obnoxious about it), I have not had those kinds of experience. Cash register service? Just fine, no complaints. But advice? Guidance? Even common courtesy out in the aisles? You get better service at Home Depot.

And if this system went away, and we got private stores...I could just go somewhere else. But in PA? There's no point. And I'm literally forbidden by law to shop in New Jersey (and bring anything home, that is).

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.

• (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.)

But that’s not what this contract is about. The contract is a 65-page document covering a host of professional development priorities aimed at giving our employees the resources they need to be even more helpful when interacting with our customers

• (There's about two pages in the document that deal with those priorities; the rest is boilerplate).

Specifically, the contract requires the contractor to: (I've located the amended RFP for this contract (and Solutions 21's proposal, and the contract) at the PA Treasury site if you'd like to have a look.) Provide for 24 training sessions for more than 2,800 clerks plus training for more than 800 managers (a cost of about $2 per employee per session) (which kind of looks like a lowball bid for a a company used to training heavy hitters like Pfizer and Heinz, doesn't it?). The training subject matter includes improving sales skills, improving customer service,

• ("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.")

complaint resolution, creating a positive atmosphere in the workplace, improving product knowledge (and this is where we depart from complete accuracy; what the RFP actually required on "product knowledge" training is this: "Improve sales skills, including the ability to translate product knowledge into relevant and effective conversations with customers that result in increased sales and increased satisfaction among customers." Not the same thing as "improving product knowledge," and there is no further mention of improving product knowledge; in fact, the overview of the PLCB in the contract makes it sound like they've got that whole product knowledge thing well under control), internal communications, and training on other LCB initiatives such as dealing with minors and dealing with visibly intoxicated persons;

• (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.")

Train LCB employees to continue the training process after the contractor has left; Provide all the training materials for the training sessions; and Provide a mechanism to evaluate - and to evaluate - (interesting phrasing...) the effectiveness of the training provided.

• (So the party providing the mechanism of evaluation of the contractor's product...is the contractor, not the PLCB. Sweet.)

This contract is appropriate – both in its content and in the way it was awarded. I am eager to share with you those facts. And we would welcome the opportunity to sit down with you or any of your colleagues in the General Assembly to discuss this issue in further detail.

• (And I hope the Senators take him up on this, and do their homework first.)

Our professional development program for our retail employees is a key component of our effort to deliver on Governor Rendell’s mandate to transform the PLCB from a prohibition-era government bureaucracy into a 21st century business that puts the customer first. (It is not, and cannot be, a business!) That is our focus today and will be tomorrow, as it will ensure that this agency gives Pennsylvanians the service they deserve while continuing to responsibly grow the revenues that we transfer to the General Fund, revenues that help millions of Pennsylvanians.

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.

"If the LCB were to find a cure for cancer..."

Either Governor Rendell or his press secretary, Chuck Ardo, apparently thinks people like me -- and maybe you -- are just anti-PLCB cranks. Check this out from that Pittsburgh Post-Gazette piece on the courtesy contract controversy:

Such criticism was to be expected from longtime critics of the PLCB, countered Chuck Ardo, a spokesman for Mr. Rendell. "The LCB decided their retail staff needed some training to ensure courteous service," he said. "If the LCB were to find a cure for cancer they would find a reason to criticize it."

"Cure for cancer"? In light of what's been going on lately, it seems more likely that someone at the LCB's brother-in-law would be peddling Laetrile, Chuck, and yeah, I'd criticize that.

In fact, even your own boss criticized the courtesy contract controversy...at least, until someone got to him and, er, pointed out the facts. Check it out, and how Chuck spun it right around (emphasis added, cuz I wouldn't want you to miss the important stuff...):

Mr. Rendell, when asked about the customer service training contract at a news conference, said it was the first he'd heard of it -- and of the relationship between the consulting firm's president and an PLCB manager. "If it's true, it's something that should be corrected," Mr. Rendell said.

But the governor made that comment before he had all the information about the contract, Mr. Ardo said. "He is not calling for the contract to be rebid," said Mr. Ardo. "He answered instinctively [because] the way the question was asked it seemed there might be a problem, but once the details unfolded it was clear there is no problem."

Clear? You bet! It's clear to me that Rendell's "instinctive" response to hearing about a fairly large state contract being let to the husband of a high-ranking agency manager was that it was "something that should be corrected." How much more information do you need? That it's "in compliance" with the state's Adverse Interest Act, according to LCB spokesman Nick Hays? Yeah, that's a tough standard. Check out the Post-Gazette's careful, damning parsing of that:

Hays said the contract was "in compliance" with the state's Adverse Interest Act, which among other things prohibits state employees from influencing contracts in which they have an interest.
The act also prohibits state employees from having an "adverse interest" in any contract with the state agency that employs them. The act defines that interest as being "a stockholder, partner, member, agent, representative or employee" of a company seeking such a contract. Hays said Susanne Hobart does not do any work for her husband's firm.

Let me get this straight. Is this coming from the same state agency that recently required an investor in Philadelphia brewpub Earth Bread + Brewery to sell his investment to his wife (because he was also an investor in another small Pennsylvania brewery, which might influence the managers of EB+B to buy beer from that brewery), and then further required his wife to sign an affadavit that her husband would never profit from her investment? Really?

Did they require Mrs. Hobart to sign a similar affadavit? They're married. The state's "Adverse Interest Act" doesn't cover that? I guess that's one of the "details" Chuck was talking about.

The Gov should follow his instincts more often.

Where the pig bought her lipstick

An interesting story surfaced today on the PLCB's 'charm school' efforts. Here's the nut, from today's Inquirer:

The president of the Pittsburgh-based company hired to train state liquor-store clerks and managers in the basics of being nice is married to one of the Liquor Control Board's top-level employees.
Buddy Hobart, president of the Solutions 21 consulting firm hired to conduct the training, is the husband of Susanne Hobart, the Liquor Control Board's regional manager in Pittsburgh. Hobart, who is paid $85,000 a year, is one of only three regional managers for the agency.
Liquor Control Board officials said yesterday that Susanne Hobart has no sway over contract matters in general and had no say over the $174,000 contract recently awarded to Solutions 21.

The contract, according to the PLCB, is "in compliance" with the state's Adverse Interest Act. Which is good, I'd hate to have it not be. Hobart's firm was one of five that bid, and submitted "the lowest and best" offer, according to the PLCB spokesperson. But my kids used to listen to John Flynn's The Duck Song when they were little, and I think it's instructive at this juncture:

If it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck
And there's duck-do on your pick-up truck
Buddy you can bet your bottom buck
It ain't no armadillo

This contract looks like a duck, at this point. Haven't heard it quack yet. But...the husband of one of the PLCB's top managers (who will be getting the training, by the way) gets a juicy contract for services that, realistically, the PLCB doesn't even need -- monopoly, you gotta get your booze here cuz the law says you got no choice, remember? -- and they're telling us it's an armadillo. Maybe it is.

But maybe we should check the pick-up truck.

There's a better, more complete story at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, too.

More lipstick for the pig, and Joe Conti surfaces

From an AP story I saw in the Inquirer:

The PLCB is going to spend more of Pennsylvania taxpayers' money (that's money taken out of their 'contribution' to the general fund; more 'operating expenses') to pay a Pittsburgh company $173,820 this year to train State Store System managers "how to coach their staffers in the fundamentals of being good sales reps." This coaching will consist of teaching them "how to greet someone, where to stand, and how to read a customer's cues." Really, that's what they apparently believe the SSS clerks need to learn. I suppose we should be grateful that they're at least paying a Pennsylvania company to do the training.

Folks, this is more lipstick for the pig; it is, as I said here, about as natural as my dog walking on hind legs, wearing a dress, and smoking a cigar. This is not a business. It is a state-owned and mandated monopoly. The reason the PLCB is spending money on this is defensive. They want to keep you just satisfied enough to distract you from the reality of this unnatural situation.

It's pretty telling that the clerks will not receive any product training on wines and spirits under this program. No, they don't get that until they've learned courtesy. Amazing that the SSS has gone this long without realizing there might be a need for this stuff.

There are big ads in the Inquirer every week for the giant liquor/wine/beer superstores located just over the border in New Jersey and Delaware. Why are the ads in the Inky, why are the stores just across the border? Because Pennsylvanians shop there in droves, every week, because the State Store System either doesn't have what they want, doesn't have as good a price, or can't be bothered to give them good service and assistance.

The reason why is simple: the SSS has no incentive to deliver that. They're just doing their job, selling the bottles, and if you want them, okay, they'll sell them. But -- with a few, dedicated, interested exceptions -- the employees are not interested in helping you. They don't have to. All they have to do is keep the shelves stocked and ring up your purchase and bag it (don't try to bag it yourself, a lesson I learned; that's the one thing that will bring out passion in these folks as they quickly tell you you're not supposed to do that).

Now they're going to get training to be nice to people. To say 'Thank you.' Oh, boy. It changes nothing. The State Store System has to go. It is unresponsive, it is ridiculously, unnecessarily state-owned, and it is robbing Pennsylvanians of jobs.

Side bits of interest. PLCB "CEO" Joe Conti was quoted in the article, the first mention of him from the board in months. Has he been behind the scenes, working away? Maybe, though it's hard to believe a long-time legislator wouldn't have made sure he got his due. Has he been resting his ass in a job that most people assumed, from the way it was handed to him without any job search or serious interview process, was a total sinecure? Maybe, though I'd rather not think so. Hard to say.

The story also quoted Eric Epstein, identified as "a Harrisburg activist and founder of RockTheCapital.org." Epstein "politely called the idea 'a demented interpretation of happy hour.
It's a sad state of affairs when you have to train people to be kind and courteous,' he said, 'but I guess things are so bad that even booze peddlers have to pretend to be nice.'"

"Even booze peddlers." Thanks, Eric, you schmuck. It's not like they're pushing crack on street corners.

If You've Got a Problem...

A point for the PLCB: they're trying to be responsive. Tucked away in their website is this Customer Satisfaction Form. They ask if you found everything you wanted (and if not, what "specific items" were not there; so don't bother putting in something like "a good selection of premium bourbons"), if you found the store hours satisfactory, and how you found the store's appearance, quality of service, and the convenience of the store's location. There's also an open field for suggestions on improving service.

At least they're trying. Though again, as I pointed out, why bother? You've got us over a barrel, we'd have to buy booze at the State Store System anyway. Oh, wait...if things really suck, we might go over the border more. Wonder what percentage of Pennsylvanians live within 15 miles of the border? Wonder how many liquor stores are on the other side of that border?

More PLCB blogging

Check out these pages from a blog called tleaves, done by some engagingly clever folks from the Pittsburgh area. Like me, they (or at least one of them) are driven mad by the PLCB. The post title that first caught my eye: It'd Probably Work Better if it Were Run By Drunkards.

But it was this post that let me know I'd found a true kindred spirit, someone who really understood just how messed up the PLCB has made retail liquor in Pennsylvania. Because I, too, had tried to buy a bottle of Luxardo maraschino liqueur at a State Store, and met with the same response: "There's no such thing." Actually, the first response I got was "We don't sell grenadine." Good God.

Good to know at least one other blogger out there is as pissed off as I am.