2Old2Blog
Friday, November 10, 2006
Beware of US Bank's Visa Buxx Card
Since August of this year, I have been at war with U.S. Bank over $1200
in fraudulent, unauthorized charges made in Europe to my daughter's Visa
Buxx card (which has not left the United States this year). Here is my
first letter:
"Dear Mr. Grundhofer:
I write to describe your abysmal customer service before I contact
attorneys to initiate a class action lawsuit against U.S. Bank for
damages arising from your failure to honor your contact with your
Visabuxx holders.
My story is simple. On August 9, 2006, my daughter found her Visabuxx
account drained of money. She immediately notified U.S. Bank by calling
the customer service number on the back of the card. She was told at
that time that she would be sent a form to fill out to document the
fraudulent transactions that she identified. It was not difficult to
identify the transactions, as we live in Santa Monica, California, and
they all were processed with merchants in Europe.
The form for reporting the fraudulent transactions never arrived.
Indeed, we received several letters dated August 21, 2006 in a single
envelope from your company stating that we would be contacted if any
further information was needed. See Exhibit 1.
As an attorney who has represented banks, I remained concerned about
these charges and contacted your company on August 31, 2006 to inquire
about the status and whether I needed to take any further action. On
that date, I sent two emails and a letter, in addition to spending
several fruitless hours on the telephone with your customer service
representatives who could not answer (and still cannot answer) my
questions. My August 31 communications are attached to this letter as
Exhibit 2.
Following my August 31 communications, I received the emails attached
as Exhibit 3 to this letter. As you can see, in each instance, I replied
immediately to any communication from your company. The reverse was not
true. In addition, I was repeatedly assured that no further action was
necessary on our part to facilitate investigation of this matter.
On September 11, 2006, I received five letters from your company
concerning the fraudulent transactions. The letters were all dated
September 3, 2006. The single envelope containing all of the letters was
self-marked and dated September 1, 2006. Let me emphasize that these
letters did not arrive at my home until my regular postal delivery on
the afternoon of September 11. Exhibit 4 is a copy of those letters and
of the envelope containing them. In the letters, you imposed a deadline
of September 11, 2006 for us to respond to an August 18, 2006 letter
that we never received and that was mentioned for the first time in the
September 3, 2006, letter despite our many inquiries concerning this
matter.
I replied via facsimile the same day, September 11, 2006, and called
your customer service line as well. See Exhibit 5. Finally, on September
11, 2006, at 10:30 p.m., Sabrina, CSR # 2865, agreed to fax to me the
fraud forms within 24 hours. I received the forms the next morning,
September 12, 2006, completed them, and returned them to you via fax the
same day. See Exhibit 5. Indeed, the very fax number included on all of
the letters and on the fax cover sheet was not operational so I had to
call your customer service line again on the evening of September 12,
2006 and was given a second number. I immediately faxed the documents to
the new fax number provided, as well as to the fax number shown on your
fax cover sheet. Even then, I was requested after speaking to the
supervisor, Sam, CSR #2541, to resend the faxed forms to second number
(953-377-4438) addressed to Ormela Prashad. I complied with this request
as well. See Exhibit 5.
It is now September 13, 2006, and my account still has not been
credited for these fraudulent transactions despite countless hours on
the phone with numerous customer service representatives. This
transcends fraud; it is theft. Your company has breached its cardholder
agreement and Visa's no loss guarantee. It also has committed mail
fraud. I am able to document my side of the story, as you can see. Can
you document yours? I have not spoken to a single customer service
representative of your company who is able to produce the "August
18, 2006" letter referenced in your September 3, letter. If a letter
was sent on August 18, why on August 21, 2006, two days later, did you
say "if we need additional information from you in order to perform
our research, we may need to contact you"?
As I stated above, I am a lawyer with experience in dealing with these
matters. An ordinary consumer with a 9 to 5 job and no legal training
would be utterly at your mercy. By copy of this letter, I am notifying
the California Attorney General, the Federal Reserve Board, Visa USA,
and any consumer or media group that is interested concerning your
shoddy practices."
This was not the end of the story, however. The rest is contained in
this letter to the OCC and the California AG:
"This letter supplements the above-referenced complaint. As you may
recall, we submitted forms to the bank identifying five fraudulent
transactions on September 12, 2006. We received form letters from the
bank acknowledging receipt of all of our dispute forms in September. On
October 20, 2006, we received 4 (four) additional letters from the bank
concerning four of the five fraudulent charges. These letters were dated
October 13, 2006, but the envelopes transmitting those letters were
dated October 18, 2006. See Exhibit 1. We responded to those letters on
the date we received them, October 20, 2006.
On November 1, 2006, I spent 3 (three) continuous hours with customer service at the bank
concerning my daughter Hilary's account, which I could not and still
(two days later) cannot access online. I was informed by the bank at
that time that we received credit for the four fraudulent charges
relating to the four October 13 letters, but that one of the charges,
for $212.76, had not been permanently credited to our account. We have
received no additional correspondence from the bank other than the
September acknowledgement of our dispute form concerning this charge. We
disputed this charge substantially more than 45 days ago, the maximum
time allowed by the customer agreement.
As I informed your representative, Electra, on November 1, the customer
service practices of U.S. Bank regarding their prepaid cards amount to a
"no customer service" policy. Victims of fraudulent charges are
given a customer service phone number that connects the caller to a
customer service center in India which has no direct access to the
disputed charges unit in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. We the consumers are
unable to discuss these fraudulent charges or the actions taken thereon
with anyone in this country who has access to the paperwork concerning
the fraudulent charges. In short, the entire system is designed to
frustrate the customer into acceding to the fraudulent charges rather
than disputing them. In my case, this has been exacerbated by my
inability to access my daughter's account online for three days
without any explanation from the bank.
I understand that many employers now use these prepaid cards to pay the
wages of their employees. I suggest that the OCC examine the safeguards
implemented by the issuers with respect to unauthorized charges before
allowing widespread use of prepaid cards for employee wages."
Unbelievably, I still cannot access my daughter’s account!!! Of course,
we are closing her account when it is empty. ¶ 6:23 PM 0 Comments
in fraudulent, unauthorized charges made in Europe to my daughter's Visa
Buxx card (which has not left the United States this year). Here is my
first letter:
"Dear Mr. Grundhofer:
I write to describe your abysmal customer service before I contact
attorneys to initiate a class action lawsuit against U.S. Bank for
damages arising from your failure to honor your contact with your
Visabuxx holders.
My story is simple. On August 9, 2006, my daughter found her Visabuxx
account drained of money. She immediately notified U.S. Bank by calling
the customer service number on the back of the card. She was told at
that time that she would be sent a form to fill out to document the
fraudulent transactions that she identified. It was not difficult to
identify the transactions, as we live in Santa Monica, California, and
they all were processed with merchants in Europe.
The form for reporting the fraudulent transactions never arrived.
Indeed, we received several letters dated August 21, 2006 in a single
envelope from your company stating that we would be contacted if any
further information was needed. See Exhibit 1.
As an attorney who has represented banks, I remained concerned about
these charges and contacted your company on August 31, 2006 to inquire
about the status and whether I needed to take any further action. On
that date, I sent two emails and a letter, in addition to spending
several fruitless hours on the telephone with your customer service
representatives who could not answer (and still cannot answer) my
questions. My August 31 communications are attached to this letter as
Exhibit 2.
Following my August 31 communications, I received the emails attached
as Exhibit 3 to this letter. As you can see, in each instance, I replied
immediately to any communication from your company. The reverse was not
true. In addition, I was repeatedly assured that no further action was
necessary on our part to facilitate investigation of this matter.
On September 11, 2006, I received five letters from your company
concerning the fraudulent transactions. The letters were all dated
September 3, 2006. The single envelope containing all of the letters was
self-marked and dated September 1, 2006. Let me emphasize that these
letters did not arrive at my home until my regular postal delivery on
the afternoon of September 11. Exhibit 4 is a copy of those letters and
of the envelope containing them. In the letters, you imposed a deadline
of September 11, 2006 for us to respond to an August 18, 2006 letter
that we never received and that was mentioned for the first time in the
September 3, 2006, letter despite our many inquiries concerning this
matter.
I replied via facsimile the same day, September 11, 2006, and called
your customer service line as well. See Exhibit 5. Finally, on September
11, 2006, at 10:30 p.m., Sabrina, CSR # 2865, agreed to fax to me the
fraud forms within 24 hours. I received the forms the next morning,
September 12, 2006, completed them, and returned them to you via fax the
same day. See Exhibit 5. Indeed, the very fax number included on all of
the letters and on the fax cover sheet was not operational so I had to
call your customer service line again on the evening of September 12,
2006 and was given a second number. I immediately faxed the documents to
the new fax number provided, as well as to the fax number shown on your
fax cover sheet. Even then, I was requested after speaking to the
supervisor, Sam, CSR #2541, to resend the faxed forms to second number
(953-377-4438) addressed to Ormela Prashad. I complied with this request
as well. See Exhibit 5.
It is now September 13, 2006, and my account still has not been
credited for these fraudulent transactions despite countless hours on
the phone with numerous customer service representatives. This
transcends fraud; it is theft. Your company has breached its cardholder
agreement and Visa's no loss guarantee. It also has committed mail
fraud. I am able to document my side of the story, as you can see. Can
you document yours? I have not spoken to a single customer service
representative of your company who is able to produce the "August
18, 2006" letter referenced in your September 3, letter. If a letter
was sent on August 18, why on August 21, 2006, two days later, did you
say "if we need additional information from you in order to perform
our research, we may need to contact you"?
As I stated above, I am a lawyer with experience in dealing with these
matters. An ordinary consumer with a 9 to 5 job and no legal training
would be utterly at your mercy. By copy of this letter, I am notifying
the California Attorney General, the Federal Reserve Board, Visa USA,
and any consumer or media group that is interested concerning your
shoddy practices."
This was not the end of the story, however. The rest is contained in
this letter to the OCC and the California AG:
"This letter supplements the above-referenced complaint. As you may
recall, we submitted forms to the bank identifying five fraudulent
transactions on September 12, 2006. We received form letters from the
bank acknowledging receipt of all of our dispute forms in September. On
October 20, 2006, we received 4 (four) additional letters from the bank
concerning four of the five fraudulent charges. These letters were dated
October 13, 2006, but the envelopes transmitting those letters were
dated October 18, 2006. See Exhibit 1. We responded to those letters on
the date we received them, October 20, 2006.
On November 1, 2006, I spent 3 (three) continuous hours with customer service at the bank
concerning my daughter Hilary's account, which I could not and still
(two days later) cannot access online. I was informed by the bank at
that time that we received credit for the four fraudulent charges
relating to the four October 13 letters, but that one of the charges,
for $212.76, had not been permanently credited to our account. We have
received no additional correspondence from the bank other than the
September acknowledgement of our dispute form concerning this charge. We
disputed this charge substantially more than 45 days ago, the maximum
time allowed by the customer agreement.
As I informed your representative, Electra, on November 1, the customer
service practices of U.S. Bank regarding their prepaid cards amount to a
"no customer service" policy. Victims of fraudulent charges are
given a customer service phone number that connects the caller to a
customer service center in India which has no direct access to the
disputed charges unit in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. We the consumers are
unable to discuss these fraudulent charges or the actions taken thereon
with anyone in this country who has access to the paperwork concerning
the fraudulent charges. In short, the entire system is designed to
frustrate the customer into acceding to the fraudulent charges rather
than disputing them. In my case, this has been exacerbated by my
inability to access my daughter's account online for three days
without any explanation from the bank.
I understand that many employers now use these prepaid cards to pay the
wages of their employees. I suggest that the OCC examine the safeguards
implemented by the issuers with respect to unauthorized charges before
allowing widespread use of prepaid cards for employee wages."
Unbelievably, I still cannot access my daughter’s account!!! Of course,
we are closing her account when it is empty. ¶ 6:23 PM 0 Comments
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
Interesting List
They tell me I'm cured, my hair looks almost normal (though it's curly now) and I'm trying to get back to life as usual. So I haven't been blogging lately. But this list was worth posting:
Democrats:
* Richard Gephardt: Air National Guard, 1965-71.
* David Bonior: Staff Sgt., Air Force 1968-72.
* Tom Daschle: 1st Lt., Air Force SAC 1969-72.
* Al Gore: enlisted Aug. 1969; sent to Vietnam Jan. 1971 as an army
journalist in 20th Engineer Brigade.
* Bob Kerrey: Lt. j.g. Navy 1966-69; Medal of Honor, Vietnam.
* Daniel Inouye: Army 1943-47; Medal of Honor, WWII.
* John Kerry: Lt., Navy 1966-70; Silver Star, Bronze Star with Combat V, Purple Hearts.
* Charles Rangel: Staff Sgt., Army 1948-52; Bronze Star, Korea.
* Max Cleland: Captain, Army 1965-68; Silver Star &Bronze Star, Vietnam. Paraplegic from war injuries. Served in Congress.
* Ted Kennedy: Army, 1951-53.
* Tom Harkin: Lt., Navy, 1962-67; Naval Reserve, 1968-74.
* Jack Reed: Army Ranger, 1971-1979; Captain, Army Reserve 1979-91.
* Fritz Hollings: Army officer in WWII; Bronze Star and seven campaign ribbons.
* Leonard Boswell: Lt. Col., Army 1956-76; Vietnam, DFCs, Bronze Stars,and Soldier's Medal.
* Pete Peterson: Air Force Captain, POW. Purple Heart, Silver Star and Legion of Merit.
* Mike Thompson: Staff sergeant, 173rd Airborne, Purple Heart.
* Bill McBride: Candidate for Fla. Governor. Marine in Vietnam; Bronze
Star with Combat V.
* Gray Davis: Army Captain in Vietnam, Bronze Star.
* Pete Stark: Air Force 1955-57
* Chuck Robb: Vietnam
* Howell Heflin: Silver Star
* George McGovern: Silver Star &DFC during WWII.
* Bill Clinton: Did not serve. Student deferments. Entered draft but received #311.
* Jimmy Carter: Seven years in the Navy.
* Walter Mondale: Army 1951-1953
* John Glenn: WWII and Korea; six DFCs and AirMedal with 18 Clusters.
* Tom Lantos: Served in Hungarian underground in WWII. Saved by Raoul Wallenberg.
Republicans -- and these are the guys sending people to war:
* Dick Cheney: did not serve. Several deferments, the last by marriage.
* Dennis Hastert: did not serve.
* Tom Delay: did not serve.
* Roy Blunt: did not serve.
* Bill Frist: did not serve.
* Mitch McConnell: did not serve.
* Rick Santorum: did not serve.
* Trent Lott: did not serve.
* John Ashcroft: did not serve. Seven deferments to teach business
* Jeb Bush: did not serve.
* Karl Rove: did not serve.
* Saxby Chambliss: did not serve. "Bad knee." The man who attacked Max Cleland's patriotism.
* Paul Wolfowitz: did not serve.
* Vin Weber: did not serve.
* Richard Perle: did not serve.
* Douglas Feith: did not serve.
* Eliot Abrams: did not serve.
* Richard Shelby: did not serve.
* Jon! Kyl: did not serve.
* Tim Hutchison: did not serve.
* Christopher Cox: did not serve.
* Newt Gingrich: did not serve.
* Don Rumsfeld: served in Navy (1954-57) as flight instructor.
* George W. Bush: failed to complete his six-year National Guard; got assigned to Alabama so he could campaign for family friend running for U.S. Senate; failed to show up for required medical exam, disappeared from duty.
* Ronald Reagan: due to poor eyesight, served in a non- combat role making movies.
* B-1 Bob Dornan: Consciously enlisted after fighting was over in Korea.
* Phil Gramm: did not serve.
* John McCain: Vietnam POW, Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit,
Purple Heart and Distinguished Flying Cross.
* Dana Rohrabacher: did not serve.
* John M. McHugh: did not serve.
* JC Watts: did not serve.
* Jack Kemp: did not serve. "Knee problem, " although continued in NFL for 8 years as quarterback.
* Dan Quayle: Journalism unit of the Indiana National Guard.
* Rudy Giuliani: did not serve.
* George Pataki: did not serve.
* Spencer Abraham: did not serve.
* John Engler: did not serve.
* Lindsey Graham: National Guard lawyer.
* Arnold Schwarzenegger: AWOL from Austrian army base.
Pundits &Preachers
* Sean Hannity: did not serve.
* Rush Limbaugh: did not serve (4-F with a 'pilonidal cyst.')
* Bill O'Reilly: did not serve.
* Michael Savage: did not serve.
* George Will: did not serve.
* Chris Matthews: did not serve.
* Paul Gigot: did not serve.
* Bill Bennett: did not serve.
* Pat Buchanan: did not serve.
* John Wayne: did not serve.
* Bill Kristol: did not serve.
* Kenneth Starr: did not serve.
* Antonin Scalia: did not serve.
* Clarence Thomas: did not serve.
* Ralph Reed: did not serve.
* Michael Medved: did not serve.
* Charlie Daniels: did not serve.
* Ted Nugent: did not serve. (He only shoots at things that don't shoot back.)
Please keep this information circulating
--Illinois State Sen. Howard W. Carroll ¶ 8:19 AM 3 Comments
Democrats:
* Richard Gephardt: Air National Guard, 1965-71.
* David Bonior: Staff Sgt., Air Force 1968-72.
* Tom Daschle: 1st Lt., Air Force SAC 1969-72.
* Al Gore: enlisted Aug. 1969; sent to Vietnam Jan. 1971 as an army
journalist in 20th Engineer Brigade.
* Bob Kerrey: Lt. j.g. Navy 1966-69; Medal of Honor, Vietnam.
* Daniel Inouye: Army 1943-47; Medal of Honor, WWII.
* John Kerry: Lt., Navy 1966-70; Silver Star, Bronze Star with Combat V, Purple Hearts.
* Charles Rangel: Staff Sgt., Army 1948-52; Bronze Star, Korea.
* Max Cleland: Captain, Army 1965-68; Silver Star &Bronze Star, Vietnam. Paraplegic from war injuries. Served in Congress.
* Ted Kennedy: Army, 1951-53.
* Tom Harkin: Lt., Navy, 1962-67; Naval Reserve, 1968-74.
* Jack Reed: Army Ranger, 1971-1979; Captain, Army Reserve 1979-91.
* Fritz Hollings: Army officer in WWII; Bronze Star and seven campaign ribbons.
* Leonard Boswell: Lt. Col., Army 1956-76; Vietnam, DFCs, Bronze Stars,and Soldier's Medal.
* Pete Peterson: Air Force Captain, POW. Purple Heart, Silver Star and Legion of Merit.
* Mike Thompson: Staff sergeant, 173rd Airborne, Purple Heart.
* Bill McBride: Candidate for Fla. Governor. Marine in Vietnam; Bronze
Star with Combat V.
* Gray Davis: Army Captain in Vietnam, Bronze Star.
* Pete Stark: Air Force 1955-57
* Chuck Robb: Vietnam
* Howell Heflin: Silver Star
* George McGovern: Silver Star &DFC during WWII.
* Bill Clinton: Did not serve. Student deferments. Entered draft but received #311.
* Jimmy Carter: Seven years in the Navy.
* Walter Mondale: Army 1951-1953
* John Glenn: WWII and Korea; six DFCs and AirMedal with 18 Clusters.
* Tom Lantos: Served in Hungarian underground in WWII. Saved by Raoul Wallenberg.
Republicans -- and these are the guys sending people to war:
* Dick Cheney: did not serve. Several deferments, the last by marriage.
* Dennis Hastert: did not serve.
* Tom Delay: did not serve.
* Roy Blunt: did not serve.
* Bill Frist: did not serve.
* Mitch McConnell: did not serve.
* Rick Santorum: did not serve.
* Trent Lott: did not serve.
* John Ashcroft: did not serve. Seven deferments to teach business
* Jeb Bush: did not serve.
* Karl Rove: did not serve.
* Saxby Chambliss: did not serve. "Bad knee." The man who attacked Max Cleland's patriotism.
* Paul Wolfowitz: did not serve.
* Vin Weber: did not serve.
* Richard Perle: did not serve.
* Douglas Feith: did not serve.
* Eliot Abrams: did not serve.
* Richard Shelby: did not serve.
* Jon! Kyl: did not serve.
* Tim Hutchison: did not serve.
* Christopher Cox: did not serve.
* Newt Gingrich: did not serve.
* Don Rumsfeld: served in Navy (1954-57) as flight instructor.
* George W. Bush: failed to complete his six-year National Guard; got assigned to Alabama so he could campaign for family friend running for U.S. Senate; failed to show up for required medical exam, disappeared from duty.
* Ronald Reagan: due to poor eyesight, served in a non- combat role making movies.
* B-1 Bob Dornan: Consciously enlisted after fighting was over in Korea.
* Phil Gramm: did not serve.
* John McCain: Vietnam POW, Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit,
Purple Heart and Distinguished Flying Cross.
* Dana Rohrabacher: did not serve.
* John M. McHugh: did not serve.
* JC Watts: did not serve.
* Jack Kemp: did not serve. "Knee problem, " although continued in NFL for 8 years as quarterback.
* Dan Quayle: Journalism unit of the Indiana National Guard.
* Rudy Giuliani: did not serve.
* George Pataki: did not serve.
* Spencer Abraham: did not serve.
* John Engler: did not serve.
* Lindsey Graham: National Guard lawyer.
* Arnold Schwarzenegger: AWOL from Austrian army base.
Pundits &Preachers
* Sean Hannity: did not serve.
* Rush Limbaugh: did not serve (4-F with a 'pilonidal cyst.')
* Bill O'Reilly: did not serve.
* Michael Savage: did not serve.
* George Will: did not serve.
* Chris Matthews: did not serve.
* Paul Gigot: did not serve.
* Bill Bennett: did not serve.
* Pat Buchanan: did not serve.
* John Wayne: did not serve.
* Bill Kristol: did not serve.
* Kenneth Starr: did not serve.
* Antonin Scalia: did not serve.
* Clarence Thomas: did not serve.
* Ralph Reed: did not serve.
* Michael Medved: did not serve.
* Charlie Daniels: did not serve.
* Ted Nugent: did not serve. (He only shoots at things that don't shoot back.)
Please keep this information circulating
--Illinois State Sen. Howard W. Carroll ¶ 8:19 AM 3 Comments
Saturday, July 30, 2005
Wednesday, July 13, 2005
Menopause and Hormones
After heavy duty chemotherapy, menopause is virtually a given regardless of your age.
Before I was diagnosed, though, I had menopausal symptoms that drove me crazy. I had hot flashes virtually every day at 6:15 p.m. which, coincidentally, was 15 minutes before I left my office to head home. I had cramps for the first time in my life. And more . . . well, I'll spare you the details.
My doctor immediately suggested hormones. Many of my friends -- primarily my working friends -- said hormones had saved their sanity. Now I admit that my life has not been without its experiments, but before I had cancer, I never took a pill every day for anything for more than a 21-day cycle of antibiotics. So I chose to tough it out and make lifestyle changes, e.g., more exercise and less stress. And my strategy worked for the most part.
So the study on hormone therapy that was publicized today underscored what I have come to believe after chemo and menopause and life itself: the less medicine you take, the better. And the more exercise you take, the better. Not exactly profound, but when you are in the middle of an uncomfortable but not life threatening physical crisis, don't reach for a pill.
See the study at: http://jama.ama-assn.org/ ¶ 8:15 AM 1 Comments
Before I was diagnosed, though, I had menopausal symptoms that drove me crazy. I had hot flashes virtually every day at 6:15 p.m. which, coincidentally, was 15 minutes before I left my office to head home. I had cramps for the first time in my life. And more . . . well, I'll spare you the details.
My doctor immediately suggested hormones. Many of my friends -- primarily my working friends -- said hormones had saved their sanity. Now I admit that my life has not been without its experiments, but before I had cancer, I never took a pill every day for anything for more than a 21-day cycle of antibiotics. So I chose to tough it out and make lifestyle changes, e.g., more exercise and less stress. And my strategy worked for the most part.
So the study on hormone therapy that was publicized today underscored what I have come to believe after chemo and menopause and life itself: the less medicine you take, the better. And the more exercise you take, the better. Not exactly profound, but when you are in the middle of an uncomfortable but not life threatening physical crisis, don't reach for a pill.
See the study at: http://jama.ama-assn.org/ ¶ 8:15 AM 1 Comments
Friday, July 01, 2005
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor
Rumors circulated last year that Sandra Day O'Connor, the first woman justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, was planning to resign. With the diagnosis of Chief Justice William Rehnquist's thyroid cancer, the buzz flew around his possible resignation (still a possibility, I'm sure). But it surprised me to find tears in my eyes when I heard of Justice O'Connor's announcement this morning. Not because I always or even often agreed with her opinions and reasoning, and not because she is more of a loss than Rehnquist (though she is, in my view). Rather, for all women who have practiced law in this country in the last 50 years, Sandra Day O'Connor is an icon of success and grace.
My favorite Sandra Day O'Connor story goes something like this: When she graduated third in her class from from Stanford Law School, she applied to venerable law firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher for an associate position. Instead, she was offered a secretarial position (after all, she was just a woman). Yet when Gibson Dunn celebrated its 100th anniversary and invited her to be its keynote speaker, she agreed. She did not ignore the earlier incident, but with humor and intelligence used it as a pivot to illustrate the advances of women in the law.
Thinking about this story (and being a less generous-natured woman than Justice O'Connor) led me ponder how far we really have come. This article reinforced what I really already knew: http://www.abanet.org/lpm/lpt/articles/mgt05041.html. Although approximately fifty percent of law school graduates are women, the are significantly underrepresented as partners in the large law firms (16.8% in 2004, up from 12.7% in 1993). The New York City Bar Association published a diversity benchmarking study in 2004, showing the percentage of women partners at 15.6% and minorities at a dismal 4.7%.
See http://www.abcny.org/pdf/report/Public_benchmarking_report.pdf
The study concluded with respect to diversity that time alone would not correct the imbalance (polite term for injustice) in the system and stated:
When I was in college and law school many moons ago, I certainly would have predicted that this situation would be corrected by the millenium. But then when I was in college, I predicted that marijuana would be legal by the millenium. Hope springs eternal. ¶ 8:12 AM 0 Comments
My favorite Sandra Day O'Connor story goes something like this: When she graduated third in her class from from Stanford Law School, she applied to venerable law firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher for an associate position. Instead, she was offered a secretarial position (after all, she was just a woman). Yet when Gibson Dunn celebrated its 100th anniversary and invited her to be its keynote speaker, she agreed. She did not ignore the earlier incident, but with humor and intelligence used it as a pivot to illustrate the advances of women in the law.
Thinking about this story (and being a less generous-natured woman than Justice O'Connor) led me ponder how far we really have come. This article reinforced what I really already knew: http://www.abanet.org/lpm/lpt/articles/mgt05041.html. Although approximately fifty percent of law school graduates are women, the are significantly underrepresented as partners in the large law firms (16.8% in 2004, up from 12.7% in 1993). The New York City Bar Association published a diversity benchmarking study in 2004, showing the percentage of women partners at 15.6% and minorities at a dismal 4.7%.
See http://www.abcny.org/pdf/report/Public_benchmarking_report.pdf
The study concluded with respect to diversity that time alone would not correct the imbalance (polite term for injustice) in the system and stated:
There is considerable diversity across race and gender in associate ranks, while the face of the partnership at signatory law firms remains predominantly white and male. Over one in five associates are racial-ethnic minorities and two in five are women. In contrast, the vast majority of special counsels and partners are both white and male. Only 4.7 percent of New York area law partners are considered racial/ethnic minorities. Women fare somewhat better than minorities comprising 15.6 percent of the partnership at signatory firms.
. . .
Often the paucity of women in the pre-partner pool due to turnover is cited as the reason why few women are partner. However, one-third of remaining class of 1996 is women. Looking at the data another way, 58 women were promoted to partner in 2004 compared to 182 women in the class of 1996 (31.8%). Meanwhile, 226 men were promoted to partner compared to 368 men in the class of 1996 (61.4%). This data suggests that attrition is not the only barrier to women’s advancement in firms.
When I was in college and law school many moons ago, I certainly would have predicted that this situation would be corrected by the millenium. But then when I was in college, I predicted that marijuana would be legal by the millenium. Hope springs eternal. ¶ 8:12 AM 0 Comments
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
Blind Auditions Increase Women's Odds of Advancement
Traditionally, women have been underrepresented in American and European orchestras. Renowned conductors have asserted that female musicians have "smaller techniques," are more temperamental and are simply unsuitable for orchestras, and some European orchestras do not hire women at all. Proving discrimination in hiring practices, however, has been difficult.
The study by Cecilia Rouse, an associate professor in Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs and the economics department, and Claudia Goldin, a professor of economics at Harvard University, seems to confirm the existence of sex-biased hiring by major symphony orchestras and illustrates the value of blind auditions, which have been adopted by most American symphonies. Their report was published in the September-November issue of the American Economic Review.
"This country's top symphony orchestras have long been alleged to discriminate against women, and others, in hiring," Rouse said. "Our research suggests both that there has been differential treatment of women and that blind auditions go a long way toward resolving the problem."
Florence Nelson, director of symphonic services at the American Federation of Musicians, described the research as a "very important statement, especially to those of us who have done auditions both ways -- behind a screen and without the screen." She has played flute and piccolo in major orchestras.
Traditionally, new members of the great symphony orchestras were handpicked by the music director and principal player of each section. Most contenders were the male students of a select group of teachers.
To overcome bias, most major U.S. orchestras began to broaden and democratize their hiring procedures in the 1970s and 1980s, advertising openings, allowing orchestra members to participate in hiring decisions and implementing blind auditions in which musicians audition behind a screen that conceals their identities but does not alter sound.
Of the "Big Five" symphonies -- the Boston Symphony Orchestra, the Chicago Symphony Orchestra, the Cleveland Symphony Orchestra, the New York Philharmonic and the Philadelphia Orchestra -- only Cleveland still does not hold blind auditions. Use of the blind auditions varies among the other orchestras, with some holding them only in preliminary rounds.
In their study, Rouse and Goldin examined lists of personnel from 11 major orchestras, including the Big Five, and actual accounts of the hiring process maintained by personnel managers in eight major orchestras.
Among musicians who auditioned in both blind and non-blind auditions, about 28.6 percent of female musicians and 20.2 percent of male musicians advanced from the preliminary to the final round in blind auditions. When preliminary auditions were not blind, only 19.3 percent of the women advanced, along with 22.5 percent of the men.
Using data from the audition records, the researchers found that blind auditions increased the probability that a woman would advance from preliminary rounds by 50 percent. The likelihood of a woman's ultimate selection is increased several fold, although the competition is extremely difficult and the chance of success still low.
As a result, blind auditions have had a significant impact on the face of symphony orchestras. About 10 percent of orchestra members were female around 1970, compared to about 35 percent in the mid-1990s. Rouse and Goldin attribute about 30 percent of this gain to the advent of blind auditions.
"Screens have been a very important part of the whole audition process," Nelson said. "My sense is that blind auditions have made a tremendous difference in the amount of hiring discrimination women face."
Nelson recalled how sensitive she was to the gender issue while auditioning. She remembers being told in the 1980s to remove her shoes while walking to center stage behind a screen, so the judges would not hear the "clickety-clack" of a woman's high heels.
¶ 7:33 AM 0 Comments
Efforts to conceal the identities of musicians auditioning for spots in symphony orchestras significantly boost the chances of women to succeed, a study co-written by a Princeton economist suggests.
Traditionally, women have been underrepresented in American and European orchestras. Renowned conductors have asserted that female musicians have "smaller techniques," are more temperamental and are simply unsuitable for orchestras, and some European orchestras do not hire women at all. Proving discrimination in hiring practices, however, has been difficult.
The study by Cecilia Rouse, an associate professor in Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs and the economics department, and Claudia Goldin, a professor of economics at Harvard University, seems to confirm the existence of sex-biased hiring by major symphony orchestras and illustrates the value of blind auditions, which have been adopted by most American symphonies. Their report was published in the September-November issue of the American Economic Review.
"This country's top symphony orchestras have long been alleged to discriminate against women, and others, in hiring," Rouse said. "Our research suggests both that there has been differential treatment of women and that blind auditions go a long way toward resolving the problem."
Florence Nelson, director of symphonic services at the American Federation of Musicians, described the research as a "very important statement, especially to those of us who have done auditions both ways -- behind a screen and without the screen." She has played flute and piccolo in major orchestras.
Traditionally, new members of the great symphony orchestras were handpicked by the music director and principal player of each section. Most contenders were the male students of a select group of teachers.
To overcome bias, most major U.S. orchestras began to broaden and democratize their hiring procedures in the 1970s and 1980s, advertising openings, allowing orchestra members to participate in hiring decisions and implementing blind auditions in which musicians audition behind a screen that conceals their identities but does not alter sound.
Of the "Big Five" symphonies -- the Boston Symphony Orchestra, the Chicago Symphony Orchestra, the Cleveland Symphony Orchestra, the New York Philharmonic and the Philadelphia Orchestra -- only Cleveland still does not hold blind auditions. Use of the blind auditions varies among the other orchestras, with some holding them only in preliminary rounds.
In their study, Rouse and Goldin examined lists of personnel from 11 major orchestras, including the Big Five, and actual accounts of the hiring process maintained by personnel managers in eight major orchestras.
Among musicians who auditioned in both blind and non-blind auditions, about 28.6 percent of female musicians and 20.2 percent of male musicians advanced from the preliminary to the final round in blind auditions. When preliminary auditions were not blind, only 19.3 percent of the women advanced, along with 22.5 percent of the men.
Using data from the audition records, the researchers found that blind auditions increased the probability that a woman would advance from preliminary rounds by 50 percent. The likelihood of a woman's ultimate selection is increased several fold, although the competition is extremely difficult and the chance of success still low.
As a result, blind auditions have had a significant impact on the face of symphony orchestras. About 10 percent of orchestra members were female around 1970, compared to about 35 percent in the mid-1990s. Rouse and Goldin attribute about 30 percent of this gain to the advent of blind auditions.
"Screens have been a very important part of the whole audition process," Nelson said. "My sense is that blind auditions have made a tremendous difference in the amount of hiring discrimination women face."
Nelson recalled how sensitive she was to the gender issue while auditioning. She remembers being told in the 1980s to remove her shoes while walking to center stage behind a screen, so the judges would not hear the "clickety-clack" of a woman's high heels.
Sunday, June 26, 2005
Runaway/Missing/True Crime
I confess: I am obsessed with missing person/true crime stories. When Jennifer Wilbanks went missing, I was on the case, primarily because I was convinced, as soon as I saw her picture, that she was a runaway and not an abducted woman. I followed the Elizabeth Smart case and persist in believing that the Groene children are alive. Since my first job out of college, as the editor of police trade magazines, I have read true crime stories avidly. I even hired a freelance writer to interview Richard Speck for the magazines in 1976.
So when Natalee Holloway went missing, I entered my usual information gathering mode. What amazed me was that I immediately was addicted, along with thousands - maybe even hundreds of thousands - of others. Why? I think I know. This could have happened to me. It could happen to my daughter, her friends, my friends. You meet a guy on vacation. He is an honors student, his dad is judge, he is going to school in the states, he speaks three languages, he is a champion athlete. I would have gone to the beach with him. I'm guessing a lot of other women would have too. And we too could be missing, probably dead, now, with teams of hundreds unable to find us on a tiny island in the Caribbean. Pretty terrifying, and enough to hold my attention for another day. ¶ 4:20 PM 0 Comments
So when Natalee Holloway went missing, I entered my usual information gathering mode. What amazed me was that I immediately was addicted, along with thousands - maybe even hundreds of thousands - of others. Why? I think I know. This could have happened to me. It could happen to my daughter, her friends, my friends. You meet a guy on vacation. He is an honors student, his dad is judge, he is going to school in the states, he speaks three languages, he is a champion athlete. I would have gone to the beach with him. I'm guessing a lot of other women would have too. And we too could be missing, probably dead, now, with teams of hundreds unable to find us on a tiny island in the Caribbean. Pretty terrifying, and enough to hold my attention for another day. ¶ 4:20 PM 0 Comments
