Cell Phones or Hell Phones?

By: Jake Jakubuwski

Copyright, 2012

All rights reserved

=====================================

PREFACE:

I often take part in a business-to-business forum where various participants ask questions about problems that they’ve encountered and seek possible solutions to those problems.

The question that I answered below was one, as you will see, regarding personal cell phone use in the workplace.

For my part, I dislike cell phones. Sure, they are great for staying in touch and emergencies and letting folks know that you’re tied up in traffic and will be late for a meeting, church service, or your wedding.

I also realize that cell phones have changed the way we communicate. Some of that is good. Some of it I find distasteful, rude, and an infringement on my privacy.

Anyway, here’s my answer to the question that was asked:

========================================================

“Pam,

Robert said that he might be “Old School” in the way he deals with the issue of personal cell phone use in the workplace. I guess that makes me an antiquated boor and my ideas about this issue totally archaic.

Robert also said that his “worst offender” chalked up a whopping 45 hours of personal calls made during one month! Roughly translated that means that person only worked for Robert three weeks out of an entire month! That individual “stole” over a week’s worth of production from Robert’s company!

Figuratively, I’ll probably be lynched for this statement: To my way of thinking stealing a week’s worth of production from an employer is no different then stealing a week’s pay out of the cash box!

The pathetic thing is that this type of ‘theft” is happening everyday, of every week, across the employment spectrum — employees subverting production time by using their cell phones to text and talk to friends, neighbors, play games and participate in “Social media”. None of which is germane, and certainly not beneficial, to the employers interests.

Yes, Pam, this is definitely a rant.

On the other hand, I must make it clear that since I now work alone, and free lance, I no longer have direct employee issues regarding this matter. Yet, I can readily empathize with employers who have to deal with the topic — a problem that is growing exponentially everyday!

As a consumer and observer, Pam, I DO have issues regarding cell phone use in the workplace.

I find it distasteful for the counter personnel at Mickey D’s, BK and Wendy’s to be talking on a cell phone while trying to ring up my order.

I find it irritating to be shopping and have the salesperson talking, or texting, on their cell phone.

I think it is totally ridiculous, as well as unsafe, for the sanitation worker to be talking on a cell phone while trying to wrestle a 90 gallon trash container into position to be dumped in the truck.

I have refused to deal with service personnel who come to my office with a Blue Tooth hanging out of their ear and while I’m trying to explain my problem and they give me “THE HAND” while they take a call! After all, I am paying for their time, so technically they are my employee for a given period.

I have had business dinners, lunches, breakfasts where the person I’m trying to interact with (on a personal or business level) interrupts the meal to take a call or text a message. That’s rude and constitutes stealing my time.

As a result, I don’t think any employer should have to be sensitive to any “issues” that an employee has regarding their “dependence” on cell phones and develop a “more accepting approach” as Andrew suggested.

After all, the individual works for the employer — not the other way around — which means that it is the employer who loses money for the production hours that are eaten up with personal calls, texts and game playing.

My personal feeling is that employees should be told up front (And apparently, Pam, your firm has done just that) that personal use of company cell phones is prohibited — and the use of personal cell phones are forbidden on company time. If necessary, spell the rules out as an official statement of company policy and have the employee read, agree to, and sign the policy statement. Then enforce it!

Long before cell phones became ever-present trappings for professional and personal use alike, calls of a personal nature were made to an employee through the employer’s office. Non-emergency calls were frowned upon and often harshly discouraged.

The problem, today, goes beyond emergency calls…it has become an issue that has grown to be of truly epic proportions and highly expensive practice in many workplaces. Stop to think about Robert’s single example. An employee stole 45 hours of time from Robert’s company — how many times a month are employees stealing time, with cell phones, throughout the American workplace?

In my mind, this issue is one that every employer, manager and HR department should take very seriously and work assiduously to control; if not eliminate.

I also believe that organizations that send their personnel to interact with customers on a face-to-face, one-on-one, basis should “train” those representatives to but their cell phone on “MESSAGE” until the interview, service call or whatever is complete.

Pam, thanks again for asking this question. And, thanks for giving me an opportunity to offer my probable, and potentially archaic, solutions — sometimes the old ideas really are the best. But, that’s for you and your other readers to decide.”

========================================================

In closing: You, my blog readers,  may agree with my assessment or you may disagree with it. One thing you can be sure of: It’s PURE JAKE to the core!

Jake Jakubuwski

NOTICE!   NOTICE!  NOTICE!

A FaceBook friend posted the following notice in an FB group that I belong to and I thought  might pass it on. If you’re into treasure hunting this could be a really fun day for you and your family.

Kenneth W Briggs Crl

Three Seasons Treasure Hunters LLC

The Three Seasons Treasure Hunters LLC will host there 2nd Annual Open Seeded Treasure Hunt/Contest June 2nd, 2012 at the River View Park in Cadott, WI. There will be Raffles and drawings throughout the day. We will be raffling a Tesoro Metal Detector. There will be 2 timed hunts. One in the morning and one in the afternoon. This will be held rain or shine. If you have a metal detector and want to try your hand at a timed hunt for prizes, contact Ken Briggs, President of Three Seasons Treasure Hunters at (715) 577-0235 Entry fee is $30.00 for the day. Cut off is May 15th, 2012 so we have a head count for food and prizes.

If you call ‘em to reserve a slot…mention the PURE JAKE blog…

9 + 9 + 9 = 27

By Jake Jakubuwski

9+9+9=27.

3X9=27.

Simple — everyday math, right?

But 27% added to whatever I’m already paying in Social Security tax, state sales tax and what I lose in “deductions”; means I am gonna have to pay more money to somebody.

I hate to start an article with an apology.  In this case, I feel I have to.

You see, I am not an accountant, bookkeeper or math wizard. I’m just a guy who has operated my own business, of one kind or the other, for nearly 50 years. I figure that gives me some sort of platform to base my ideas of what constitutes profit, what makes up a loss and whether or not I’ve got enough money left over at the end of the day, week, month or year to have made it all worthwhile.

There are some things, financial, that I take as givens.

You can’t sell for less then the cost of your merchandise plus the cost of your expenses and stay in business very long.

You can’t spend your way out of debt.

And, no matter how big the pile of whatever it is that you have, if you keep taking away from it and not replacing it; one day — it will be gone.

Another thing I’ve learned is this: If you’re in financial trouble, the cure, generally speaking is not simple, sweet-tasting or fun.

That’s what leads me to believe that the economic problems this country faces (from the White House to the lowest paid laborer in a packing house) some tough choices, that will require a lot of sacrifice on everybody’s part in order to get our financial house back in order.

Those choices might be so hard to make that they prove impossible to implement.

None of them will be simple. None of them will be easy. None of them will be popular.

The politicians from the top of the heap to the wannabes are spewing mouthfuls of rhetoric that is so convoluted; it’s gibberish to the average voter. Some of it sounds so simple, and so easy, it makes you wonder why no one thought of that before. Here’s a newsflash! Someone probably has. The new group just gussied it up in flowery language, added a new twist to it and kept their fingers crossed when they delivered their solution to the voters.

I know I’m being cynical, but all of these folks running for office today remind me of what my granddaddy had to say about shirttail relatives that came seeking a handout. He said they had a mouthful of promises and a handful of gimmie. That seems to sum up all rhetoric; at least in my mind.

Specifically, I’m wondering how we’re gonna pay for all the bailouts, pork barreling, and give-a-ways that Uncle Sugar has been throwing around like we have an endless supply of money to give away.

Unless I’m not understanding the situation, Uncle seems to think that we can speed recovery by pouring bucks on top of the pile where the bankers and other financial sharks can gobble it up but when asked how we’re gonna pay for it, Uncle tells us we can cut programs to the poor and  “straighten out Social Security.” In other words, they look for the fix and sacrifices at the bottom of the pile. It might only be me, but I just don’t understand that idea.

With a new crop of presidential wannabe’s running around mouthing all kinds of promises and espousing ideas that they claim are a nearly painless way of fixin’ what’s wrong with the economy. I have to wonder if they really think Americans are actually so stupid as to believe their guff, or they figure the majority of the electorate is just so fed up with the current crop of crooks and cretins that they’ll vote for anyone who they think sounds like they know what they’re talking about.

For instance: Herman Cain has a plank in his platform that he calls, “9-9-9”. Just on the surface of it, folks seem to like the idea as a real simple roadmap to fiscal responsibility and a way to sort of make everyone pay their fair share. I don’t believe a word of it — at least not the way I’ve heard Mr. Cain talk it up.

First off, this “fair share” drum is rather tattered and worn. From what I read and understand only about 6% of the taxpayers (including Joyce Lunchbucket and Joe the Plumber) pay their full tax rate on their actual earnings. Is there anything “fair” about that?

My take on Mr. Cain’s 9-9-9 deal is that businesses will pay a 9% rate on all of their income, period.  They will not get any deductions, tax incentives, set-offs or loss carry-overs. Does that mean McDonald Corporation pays 9% on their gross income and loses any incentives, or tax breaks, to support Ronald McDonald House, their scholarship funds and deductions for all the wages they pay as well as all of the hamburger, rolls, fries and drink cups they buy?

What about Mickey D’s share of FICA (Social Security Tax) that they pay into the Treasury on behalf of their employees? Do they still have to pay that? Or is it “included” in the 9% tax?

If I understand the program, it’s going to affect General Motors, General Electric, AT&T, NBC, Sheila’s shop of Tonsorial Splendor, Mike’s Garage, Mom’s Apple Pie Shoppe and every other business inAmerica— regardless of size or income.

If a guy or gal is self-employed and are paying their own Social Security taxes, does the 9% Mr. Cain envisions cover that contribution as well, or is it in addition to it? If this “9” is just another tax that businesses of all sizes and income levels have to pay in addition to FICA, State, County and municipal taxes that they may be liable for — I don’t see the benefit. Actually I see it as regressive.

The idea of a “flat” income tax has been floating around for years. The idea has a lot of appeal because of its simplicity and the fact that it would yank half a zillion pages out of theUnited States Revenue Code. There have been at least a half a dozen variants discussed over the years without any notable success.

The next “9” is the 9% income tax that individuals would have to pay. Does that 9% pay the wage earners share of their Social Security; or is the FICA deduction in addition to the 9%? I believe that most wage earners that are currently in a 20% tax bracket probably wind up paying far less then 9% when their personal deductions, mortgage interest, child care fees and medical expenses are deducted from their gross income.

Those folks that currently fall below the poverty level are not paying any tax at all. Are they able to take a 9% hit on their already poverty-level wages?

Then comes the final “9”. The National sales tax of 9% which, as far as I understand it, is in addition to any state, county, city or municipal sales taxes. Ouch!

InNorth Carolinawe currently have a 7.5% sales tax. If Mr. Cain is elected and his 9-9-9 program is adopted, my sales tax goes to 16.5%! That also seems to mean that anything I buy to run my business: paperclips, ink cartridges, pencils, staples and a plethora of other stuff will cost me more. Those items become expenses that I can not longer deduct.

Does that same ‘sales” tax apply to GM, GE and Mickey D’s? If it does, that means cars, electric motors and hamburgers are going to cost all of us more. Which means, as far as I can see, another loss I have to absorb because I can’t claim it as a deduction.  What’s fair about that?

Another thought. If Staples buys computers from Dell, does Staples pay a 9% sales tax on them? If so, Staples is going to charge me more for the next computer I buy from them…

Why? Well, let’s say they have a computer that I can buy today for $500.00. That will change drastically under the 999 plan. If they pay Dell $375.00 for it, plus 9% Federal Sales Tax, then I pay that 9% as well. In which case, Staples will add a MINIMUM of $34.35 to that computer. So now, I will pay NC State sales tax on $534.35 at 7.5% PLUS the 9% Federal Sales Tax.

Another thing I’ve learned over the years is that if your cost of doing business increases — your selling price has to increase as well. Not simply by adding in only the extra cost but by adding in the extra cost PLUS a profit. If a business does not factor in a profit on their TOTAL costs of doing business that means they will make less gross profit at the end of the year. Doing that as a matter of course is a sure way to lose your business!

Here’s the really scary part of 999 as I see it: The first year it’s 9%. The next year, how much? Who knows?

I know something else from my years in business: Whatever Uncle Sugar does to help us out is going to cost us money because there is one immutable facet to the  Law of Financial Reality According to Jake:

“Nothing happens. Nothing gets sold. Nothing gets built, nothing gets repaired, nothing gets refurbished and nothing gets “overhauled” (Including the National Debt, the US Revenue Code, bureaucrat’s and politician’s salaries) that consumers and taxpayers don’t foot the bill for.”

 So, is Mr.Cain’s “999” idea just a catchy campaign slogan to entice voters and has no substance or value beyond that? Is “999” something he believes will work but has not given any meaningful thought to the actual impact of the program if it becomes law? Or, is it a smoke and mirror cure that that might kill the patient?

At this point, for me at least, the only thing 9+9+9 adds up to is 27% more money that will be coming out of my pocket.

PEANUT BUTTER AND PETROLEUM PRICES

 By: Jake Jakubuwski

Here’s the way I see it…

 Even with petroleum prices easing somewhat — although we’re still paying more for gas then we were last year — it’s easy to lose sight of the fact that what we pay for gasoline does not represent the full impact of steadily increasing fuel prices on our pocketbooks. When we buy gas, we tend to see only the immediate and personal shock of those prices when it costs us more to fill up our tanks today, then it did yesterday.

So what if you don’t drive, own a car or a gas-powered lawn mower? Even if you don’t buy gasoline or heating fuel — today’s petroleum prices are going to hit you square in your financial fanny! 

The higher fuel costs that cities, counties and states pay to operate their fleets, repair roads and build sewage systems, in turn, will ultimately trigger increases in property taxes, and “user fees”.

Increasing fuel costs will result in higher insurance rates for your cars, homes and businesses because the increased costs of manufactured, processed and salable commodities—including car parts and building materials—will affect the insurer’s financial risk. If it costs an insurer more to repair, replace or refurbish cars or cottages after an accident or disaster, those costs will be passed on to the policy holders!

When the higher costs of fuel inhibits travel and the motel industry suffers declining occupancies, they will not require as many maids to clean and “make-up” the rooms each day. Those unemployed maids may file for unemployment benefits which puts further strains on governmental coffers. Demands that will, in one form or another, be passed on to the consumer and taxpayer. 

Restaurants, movie theatres, pizza joints and paint stores will be affected by increased petroleum prices. The effects will be two-pronged: It will cost the businesses more to get the food, film and finishes that they sell delivered to the store —— and they will (If they are not already) suffer from declining sales because consumers who are putting more money in their gas tanks, will have less money to spend on discretionary purchases.

The peanut farmer is forced to pay more for fertilizer and tractor fuel to make their crop. When the peanuts are harvested, the crop is put on trucks and sent to co-ops, buying stations, or processors; where they might be turned into peanut butter, peanut oil or snacks. Then the jars of peanut butter and other peanut by-products are sent by rail and common carrier to wholesale distribution centers where it is loaded onto other trucks for delivery to your favorite grocery store or retail outlet. Each step in the process; from the farmer’s field to the grocery store shelf adds to the price the consumer will be required to pay because of increased petroleum prices.

At the grocery store we discover peanut butter is forty or fifty cents higher per jar then it was the last time we bought it. The maid who was laid off from the motel can’t afford the more expensive peanut butter unless she receives food stamps from a social agency. The cost of those food stamps will be borne by the consumer and taxpayer — that’s us!

Dow Jones, General Motors, Ford, lKimberly-Clark, Proctor and Gamble, Pete’s Plumbing and even the Solo Cup Company have fallen victim to higher energy costs and supply chain costs.

Obviously, nothing can be grown, manufactured, picked, processed, packaged or sold without considering and factoring in higher fuel costs—costs that are added at each successive stage of the chain from seed to sale—causing the prices of those items to escalate at an exponential rate.    

Since we, as consumers and taxpayers, are at the very end of the “supply chain”, we are stuck with the bill.

Every load of laundry, every flip of a light switch, every Big Mac and every stick of chewing gum will, and is, costing us more.

The cost of gasoline, at the pump, is only a small part of the inflationary feeding frenzy higher petroleum prices are creating. Even if you don’t drive, the peanut butter sandwich you had for lunch will cost you more: because petroleum prices are taking a bigger bite out of everyone’s wallet.