2 July 2007

Eskom Customer Service

Here's the content of my most recent email to Eskom (the national mostly-monopoly electricity supplier in SA) in the wake of a 48-hour clusterfuck power-outage. Four times, their halfwit technicians closed the trouble-ticket, claiming that "power was restored". Four times they were wrong.

The final straw was when I phoned at 2:30 in the morning (Hey! I was awake; there was still no power; I figured I'd see whether we could get the incompetent technician out here in the middle of the night in the rain.) and they (1st attempt) put the phone down on me, (2nd attempt) tried putting me on hold forever until I gave up and when finally (3rd attempt) answered the phone were clearly uninterested in actually doing anything that might disrupt their beauty-sleep.

Only one guy, Marius, was brilliant:
Dear Ms Andrew,

During a 48-hour power failure last week, I had a most dismal, disgusting, atrocious customer service experience at the hands of Eskom, its systems and representatives, resulting in no less than FIVE tickets -- four to resolve the actual technical problem (the fact that it took that many attempts shrieks to me of incompetence) and one other, still unresolved to my satisfaction.

In the course of events, I had __numerous__ promises from people that they would get back to me to let me know what was happening.

Didn't happen!

With ONE bright exception: Marius (surname unknown). Not only did he take the actions he promised, not only did he ACTUALLY GET BACK TO ME as promised, __in addition__, he followed-up 24-hours later to check with me whether the problem had, indeed, been resolved. This is going above and beyond expectation!

This is the true meaning of Customer Service, and should serve as a shining example to ALL Eskom's otherwise-completely-useless customer-"service" agents. It is really very simple stuff: do what you promise to do! Nothing more. Nothing less. Marius was the ONLY person I dealt with who took that simple principle to heart and acted on it.

Please let's have Marius running Eskom's entire Customer Service operation! It would seem that nobody else has a clue how to do so effectively.
What kind of trouble-ticket system allows a technician to close the ticket without closing the loop by checking with the customer?

My whingeing about the matter (the unresolved ticket referred to in my email to Ms Andrew) has now been bounced to Nico van der Merwe, Eskom's Man In George; a man in uniquely the wrong place to do anything about anything. Its been almost a week and I still haven't heard from him.

Watch This Space.

30 June 2007

The True Cost of the Strike

So the strike is over.

The Trade Unions, under the erstwhile leadership of Cosatu, managed to gain salary increases of 7.5% -- up 1.5 points from the 6% the government originally offered.

Let's assume you earned R10000/month before the strike. (I'm going to neglect all the taxes and additional "benefits" that might go with the package.  "Benefits" don't put extra cash in your pocket!)  Originally your increase would have brought your salary to R10600/month; after a month on strike, you're going to get R10750/month.  Yay!  You're R150/month better off from the strike.

Now: a month on strike has cost you R10000, since, as far as I know, "No Work, No Pay" applies.

It's going to take you 66.66 months to make back the cost of the strike.  Five years, 8 months to get back the money you have already spent on striking!

Of course the strike wasn't really about anything else, now was it.  Nothing at all to do with a bit power-arm-wrestling within the tripartite alliance.  Strictly about the money.

Let me state for the record that, along with most reasonable South Africans, I strongly support teachers, nurses and police getting paid better, especially in light of the shoddy deal they have been dealt over the past several years.  They really deserve to have their salaries at least keep pace with the official inflation rate, and the government's offers of 6%, and now 7.5% are an insult.

But Cosatu's leadership have now blatantly tipped their hand, and shown us all whose interests they really have at heart!  I think they've lost some serious cred from this farce-of-a-strike.

17 June 2007

Open Letter to Patricia de Lille

Dear Ms de Lille,



Up to now you have impressed me as being more clear-headed and honest than almost all other politicians in our country.  Up to now you seem to have avoided the kind of 50's-era, Stalinist, top-down, control-freak thinking displayed by so many of your colleagues in parliament -- on all sides of the floor.  This sort of muddle-headedness stems from a profound misunderstanding of this "Internet" thing, and leads to some very funny stuff, like  idiot American senators who think the 'net is like a bunch of pipes.  It's not.



1. The Network Routes Around Censorship



Not even the most repressive regimes in the world have managed to stop critical commentators blogging about them.  If you were to succeed in getting this dung-headed notion of licensing bloggers legislated, I guarantee you that it would take about ten minutes for dozens of anonymising proxy services to spring into being, enabling people to continue blogging, unlicensed, saying exactly what they please.  At least one of them will be implemented by me.



PS: At least one of my blogs is blocked by the Great Firewall of China, for no fathomable reason.  It contains nothing offensive, sexual or revolutionary.  Perhaps they fear its advocacy of self-reliance?  Do you think that no Chinese people read it?  I assure you that some do, despite the obstacles placed in their way by their government.



2.  Slander and Defame with Impunity?



I think not!  What on Earth makes you think that the existing laws of the land have been suspended for the 'net?



If I, or anyone, slanders some other person, or defames their good reputation without facts in evidence, then I am liable to the exact same laws protecting them, without regard for the medium I use to publish in.



Or perhaps you don't care for some opinions that might get written.  Opinions that might be written in strong language or may perhaps rip mercilessly into the cherished hobby-horses of politicians with too much time on their hands.  I believe that Article 16 of our Bill of Rights protects such expression, so you might have quite an uphill battle on this one...



3.  Online Sexual Predators: Facts Not In Evidence



You sound like a thousand other self-serving hacks when you play the "Save the Young Children from Paedophiles" card.  Not a tone of voice we're used to hearing from you, and it serves you ill.



Scientific study shows, in fact, that children are not at any particular risk from sexual predators during online interactions.  Some of the findings are:

  • Only 7% of those teens interviewed were ever approached by anyone with a sexual intent and nearly all of them simply ignored the person and blocked him from their page.
  • Two-thirds of the parents were sure that there were many sexual predators on MySpace, while only one-third of the teenagers shared this concern.
  • When asked about media coverage, 66% of the parents felt that it was either understated or close to the truth.
  • Conversely, 58% of the teens felt it was vastly overblown.


In Conclusion



Ms de Lille, please find another cause.  This one will have us all laughing out loud at its pathetic me-too futility.  The Internet is possibly the very best thing for helping us build our nascent democracy, for giving voice to the masses.  Let us rather together find ways to get 'net access to those who lack it, so that their voices can also be heard, rather than trying to stand, Nero-like on the beach, trying to stop a tsunami.



Peace and light,

Mike

31 May 2007

How to Eliminate Corruption in Government

Here's something Mr Mbeki and friends could learn from: China ex-food and drug safety chief sentenced to death.



Oh, I forgot.   We don't have the death penalty here. I'll bet that David Malatsi and cohorts breathe a huge sigh of relief...


12 March 2007

Renaming Streets and Airports

Congratulations to the premier of our province on his recent debut into 21st century discourse (by way of his shiny new blog.) A tip, Mr. Premier: post often! Once a week is the minimum. It doesn't have to be a long essay like the one you wrote on Renaming Streets and Airports -- just a couple of lines. Stuff we won't see in press releases.

Now to the issue of Renaming Streets and Airports.

Out here in the real world, outside the lala-land of politics, we have a word for this. We call it "wanking". Its a harmless pastime that gives pleasure to the participant, consumes a small amount of surplus energy, but ultimately gratifies nobody but the wanker.

Many, many people despised the name "DF Malan" for Cape Town's Airport. Why should we like it any better to see it named after yet another politician? This is a very American habit, this wanting to name airports after political figures. It is to be despised, no matter which rathole in the political woodwork was home to the politician in question. What is wrong with "Cape Town International Airport"? Tells us simply, clearly, exactly where we are, and is completely non-contentious.

On the subject of streets and neighbourhoods: Let the people who live there decide! What business is it of anybody else, anyway?