|
camhead
Sep 26, 2003, 4:10 PM
Post #1 of 16
(690 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2001
Posts: 20939
|
we need more socio-political poop here, yo.
lots of congress and dubbya are actually in support of this list, and against the recent rulings of judges that have been against a national "do not call" list. interesting.
anyway, are there any workers in the telemarketing industry that feel their employment would suffer if this list is enacted? speak up! we want to call y'all spineless leaches that need real jobs. eh?
wrd.
|
|
|
|
|
madriver
Sep 26, 2003, 4:13 PM
Post #2 of 16
(690 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 17, 2001
Posts: 8700
|
....do 50 million people even vote in the Presidential elections?
|
|
|
|
|
wideguy
Sep 26, 2003, 4:15 PM
Post #3 of 16
(690 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 9, 2003
Posts: 15045
|
In reply to: we need more socio-political poop here, yo. lots of congress and dubbya are actually in support of this list, and against the recent rulings of judges that have been against a national "do not call" list. interesting. wrd.
"Lots" is an understatement. The bill passed the house yesterday by a vote of 412-8 with less than an hour's discussion. Similar support was expected in the Senate. It will get through one way or another. How many congressmen and senators do you think are on it??
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Sep 26, 2003, 4:29 PM
Post #4 of 16
(690 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
There are definitely some judges in this country who need to either get a clue--or be replaced. First the "do not call" list was stayed by a Federal judge, on the basis that the FTC overstepped its authority in implementing the thing. That lead to the remarkable one day passage in the House of a law specifically granting the FTC said authority.
Now a different knucklehead Federal judge from Denver, has again stayed the implementation of the "do not call" list on Constitutional grounds that implementation violates the free speech of the telemarketers--never mind, of course that there also exist Constitutional protections to individual privacy. I think we should all call this judge daily, around dinner time and tell him what we think.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
robmcc
Sep 26, 2003, 4:30 PM
Post #5 of 16
(690 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 1, 2003
Posts: 2176
|
The telemarketers opposing this are idiots. Does it not occur to them that the 50 million people who have signed up are the very people who either hang up on you or aren't going to remotely consider buying anything anyway?
This isn't a restriction on free speech, it's targeted marketing! Why not choose to not call the people who won't buy anything anyway? I don't buy from telemarketers. I won't even talk to them unless they're from a company I already do business with, and even then I tell them to "send it in writing". If I go on this list (which I haven't, but will), I'm not hurting their business, I'm saving them an unproductive phone call.
|
|
|
|
|
wideguy
Sep 26, 2003, 4:46 PM
Post #6 of 16
(690 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 9, 2003
Posts: 15045
|
Unfortunately it will mean nothing for the businesses that USE telemarketers, you are absolutely right. Who it "hurts" is the callers themselves. 50 million plus less numbers to call means you need 200,000 less callers. That is their contention, mostly. Plus there is always the small percentage who will get that one call for something they are just dying for who might hang up 100 times but buys that once. THAT is what drives the industry.
Yeah I love the free speech arguement. I have the legal right to put a "No Tresspassing" or "No soliciting" sign on my house. The vinyl siding guy can't just wander into my living room and make his speech without my permission. This is just a "No soliciting" sign on my phone.
|
|
|
|
|
thomasribiere
Sep 26, 2003, 6:49 PM
Post #7 of 16
(690 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 24, 2002
Posts: 9306
|
I first wondered why you were talking about telemark...than I realised! Sorry to share my stupidity. :oops:
|
|
|
|
|
emjay
Sep 26, 2003, 7:06 PM
Post #8 of 16
(690 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2003
Posts: 117
|
My understanding is that the judge who ruled the no-call list illegal according to the First Amendment did so because of the exceptions that were permitted: calling would still be legal if you are a charitable or a polling organization. Therefore, the content of the speech determined its illegality. In a way, I guess the judge had a reasonable point.
My wish, however, is that Congress eliminate all exceptions, if that's what it takes. I have an unpublished phone number, and that's still not enough to eliminate annoying calls.
I feel sorry for anyone who loses a job, but on balance, losing your job as a telemarketer is sort of like losing your job as a crack dealer--the world is better off if you aren't employed.
In the meantime, why don't we discuss fun and amusing ways of dealing with telemarketers? When my kids were little, I would let them talk on the phone about the merits of changing our long distance service. As the kids got older, I encouraged them to tell the salespeople to try to find Jesus/Allah/the Great Snake God. The young'uns are grown and gone now, so I have to carry the ball myself. I used to like to ask callers if they wearing any underwear, but that often shortens the discussion. Now I generally say, "Hey, can you hold for a minute?" Then I put the phone down and see how long it takes them to hang up. Interestingly, they hardly ever call back.
Remember: to a telemarketer, time on the line is money to them. Waste as much of their time as possible--it's the best revenge.
|
|
|
|
|
onbelay_osu
Sep 26, 2003, 7:13 PM
Post #9 of 16
(690 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 5, 2002
Posts: 1087
|
damn this is a tricky one for me....all the telemarkerts are trying to do is earn a days living...but it is annyoing the way they go about it....this is touchy.... cause in a way i can see where it IS a violation of the first amendment.... i really do not know what to think....
why can't we disscuss easy things such as enviromental policy, ethics of war, you know something simple this one baffles my mind
|
|
|
|
|
cerikpete
Sep 26, 2003, 7:21 PM
Post #10 of 16
(690 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 22, 2002
Posts: 4043
|
In reply to: I think we should all call this judge daily, around dinner time and tell him what we think.
:lol: :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
wideguy
Sep 26, 2003, 7:26 PM
Post #11 of 16
(690 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 9, 2003
Posts: 15045
|
Dave Barry, the humor columnist, did this a while back. He put the business adress, main phone number and corporate e-mail adress for the "Americn Society of Telemarketers" (or whatever the ruling body is) in his column. Story is they had to hire a bunch of new receptionists or whatever to sort through all the voice mail and e-mail and snail mail that resulted. Obviously didn't change anything but musta been funny.
|
|
|
|
|
thegreytradster
Sep 26, 2003, 8:26 PM
Post #12 of 16
(690 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 7, 2003
Posts: 2151
|
Heard an interview on the radio with a guy who got fed up with them and did a CD of his responses to them.
The most hilarious was when he checked in to the same hotel as their convention and started calling them at 2:00AM soliciting for "Telemarketers With Insomnia" Wish I could remember his name. Should get some kind of award!
|
|
|
|
|
calliope
Sep 26, 2003, 10:43 PM
Post #13 of 16
(690 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2002
Posts: 1212
|
I signed up for the list the first day it was available, however, I'm not really doing anything to hurt telemarketers. I don't anwer my home phone anyway and only keep the line for my dsl. Everyone who needs to talk to me has my cell number.
|
|
|
|
|
lilred
Sep 27, 2003, 1:10 AM
Post #14 of 16
(690 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 3, 2002
Posts: 1100
|
RANT
I agree that telemarketers are annoying, but I thought this was a free country... You should have the choice of either answering the phone, or letting it go to voice mail. In my opinion, telemarketers SHOULD have the right to call.
This law will affect THOUSANDS of people when put into effect. It will put call centers out of business, leaving oodles of low income workers out of a job which in turn will somehow affect the economy in some screwy way.
I just lost my job today due to the do not call feud. I was a recruiting manager for two call centers, and was laid off four hours ago due to the company needing to cut costs. The company has spent thousands of dollars upgrading software for compliance with the new law, and making cuts on the operations side of things is only the first step in saving company capital.
|
|
|
|
|
enigma
Sep 27, 2003, 1:35 AM
Post #15 of 16
(690 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 19, 2002
Posts: 2279
|
In reply to: RANT I agree that telemarketers are annoying, but I thought this was a free country... You should have the choice of either answering the phone, or letting it go to voice mail. In my opinion, telemarketers SHOULD have the right to call. This law will affect THOUSANDS of people when put into effect. It will put call centers out of business, leaving oodles of low income workers out of a job which in turn will somehow affect the economy in some screwy way. I just lost my job today due to the do not call feud. I was a recruiting manager for two call centers, and was laid off four hours ago due to the company needing to cut costs. The company has spent thousands of dollars upgrading software for compliance with the new law, and making cuts on the operations side of things is only the first step in saving company capital.
I agree, besides an unlisted number is only 1.50 per month and its much harder to get on any lists if you have one. :idea:
|
|
|
|
|
danooguy
Sep 27, 2003, 3:30 AM
Post #16 of 16
(690 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 31, 2002
Posts: 3659
|
In reply to: Why not choose to not call the people who won't buy anything anyway? I don't buy from telemarketers. I won't even talk to them unless they're from a company I already do business with, and even then I tell them to "send it in writing". If I go on this list (which I haven't, but will), I'm not hurting their business, I'm saving them an unproductive phone call.
Good point.
I see both sides of the issue.
I bought my last vehicle after being solicited by phone. The dealership called me when I was in the market to buy, had what I needed; I looked and bought. I was actually glad they called.
Prior to the national Do Not Call list, everyone had the right to request being placed on the soliciting company's Do Not Call list. Thereafter you are never bothered again by that company. I used that right many times, and was able to weed out those from whom I wanted no further communications.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
