> I never forget to say thank you to any one that provides a service. > I try to engage some form of small conversation with them. I know > the janitorial staff at work by name, and their spouses, and kids.
Kasey, I'm pleased to learn that. It's a good example to follow. > But by the same token, how much you earn should not influence what > type of service you give. "Should not." I agree. I've explained to many people that the service and attitude they give has a direct effect on how they feel about themselves, how their customer feels, and (presumably) on their chances for promotion and generally getting ahead in life. But if you're constantly struggling and frustrated, it's sometimes hard to remember to be pleasant and give your best. And big businesses (and small businesses, for that matter) can't seem to understand that you get what you pay for. Here's a personal example (some of which I may have shared on-list before): Between 1989 and 1992 I worked for the eyewear (Ray-Ban) division of Bausch & Lomb in San Antonio. The company had moved recently its manufacturing facility to Texas to take advantage of the lower wage base (they no longer wanted to pay union wages of $7.50 an hour in Rochester, NY). People lined up for BLOCKS to get manufacturing jobs that started at $4.05 an hour because that was 25 cents more than the minimum wage at the time. It felt like a real "rah-rah" company at first. Most everyone went to the company store and bought Ray-Ban t-shirts for themselves and friends and family, and wore them proudly at work and elsewhere. But "rah-rah" doesn't last forever, and it doesn't pay the bills. I worked in Quality Assurance as a secretary, making $6.72 an hour - the "upper" end of the hourly wage structure. I used to argue with my boss about the sensibility of raising the wages of the manufacturing people by 50 cents an hour, based on the fact that it would equal $20 more per week, which could mean the difference between paying the electricity bill (or buying groceries) or not. She replied that headquarters didn't think 50 cents an hour was enough of a difference to bother with, and they would never consider it. Of course that was bullshit. There were 400 manufacturing people in that plant, and 50 more cents an hour for each of them would mean $416,000 a year more that Bausch & Lomb would have to pay its employees to assemble sunglasses. That's a lot of money - or is it? Those sunglasses cost maybe $10 a pair to make, and they sold for $80-$200 (or more) retail. As the workers there became more savvy (and why wouldn't they? even though B&L thought it was dealing with wetbacks who couldn't speak English and so had sent their managers to quickie Spanish school before moving them to Texas, the workers were in fact Mexican-Americans who knew an insult when they experienced one), they started asking for more and there was even (horrors!) talk of unionizing. (Management was told in no uncertain terms to squash any talk of THAT sort, or the company would simply move its business again.) People became more and more unhappy with their wages and they way they were treated by management, and eventually ... well, that plant is now closed. In fact, Bausch & Lomb, which invented Ray-Bans in 1937 and was once so (rightfully) proud of its brand, sold its entire Ray-Ban operation to Italy's Luxottica SpA in 1999. I'm sure there was more to it than the lack of a 50-cent raise, but I know the hard work, determination, dedication, and money that went into that San Antonio plant, and I have to wonder if greed didn't get the better of them and ruin everything. Lori
