You’re not looking for a job, are you? Or have a child applying to colleges?
A junk call is a junk call. There is no such thing as a “legitimate” junk call. I don’t care if you’re openly trying to sell me something, or disguising the sale attempt as a “survey”, or even trying to conduct a genuine survey, or trying to collect a debt from someone who has no connection to my phone number, but you won’t leave me alone no matter how many times I tell you to go **** yourself. Your calls are unwanted and illegitimate, and if you have any willing part in this continual harassment, then you are vermin.
Even though the law doesn’t require it, if there was such a thing as a “legitimate” survey caller, such a caller would honor the “Do Not Call List”, recognizing the obvious fact that anyone on that list is there because they do not want junk calls of any kind.
But there is no such thing as a legitimate telephone surveyor—you are all the same kind of scum as the lowest of telemarketers and other junk callers. I’ve done everything that I possibly can to make it as clear as I possibly can, to as many of you as I possibly can, that I just want you to leave me the **** alone and stop harassing me.
I’ve discovered a better trick, albeit with some limitations—call forwarding. My telephone provider will allow me to outright block up to a dozen numbers. Another dozen can be set to forward to some other chosen number. Alas, I cannot forward from or to toll-free numbers, so those just get blocked. Out of the non-toll-free numbers, I pick one telescum who has recently harassed me, and I forward all the others to that number. Let them harass one of their own instead of harassing me. I change the destination number now and then.
…or the “right” to hijack equipment and resources that belong to others, or to waste other people’s time without their consent and against their clearly-expressed wishes.
You still have to deal with it ringing (which is a problem if someone in the household is trying to sleep) or having to turn off the ringer, which will keep you from getting calls you NEED or WANT.
She’s going to flip when she hears how many businesses there are operating in the U.S. that ignore Canadian minimum wage laws.
Dear Abbey is NOT stating that the law is being disobeyed by surveyors calling people on the Do Not Call list. She is arguing that customers Do NOT Care that surveyors are technically exempt, and that it is the company’s fault for its employee’s poor working conditions due to not voluntarily complying with the list.
See the post above yours.
I imagine that largely depends on how she feels about the current state of minimum wage laws in the US, but I don’t see how that relates to my post.
Businesses operating in the U.S. routinely ignore Canadian minimum wage laws. Is it fair to criticize them for ignoring Canadian law, or is that something that doesn’t apply to U.S. businesses?
It’s fair to criticize them for blocking attempts at legislation that would raise the minimum wage to the same levels they have in Canada. How do you think these companies managed to get exemptions to the DNC list in the first place?
No, no fair answering a different question than the one asked. I’m not asking if the law should be changed, or what a business should voluntarily do or not do as a matter of morality, or what the law should ideally be. I’m asking if it’s fair to criticize U.S. businesses for ignoring Canadian minimum wage law, or if that’s law that doesn’t apply to U.S. businesses.
I am the OP, and I approve of Bob Blaylock’s posts in this thread.
In the interest of keeping the peace and because I quite like Miller, I would reiterate that my earlier offer to drop this point if everyone else does still stands.
If you’re bored, I’ll drop it. If you’re just worried about offending me, it’s cool. I’m not taking it personally.
Look, let me Jedi this up a little bit. What you’re saying is true, from a certain point of view. Polls and the like are exempted from the DNC list. Therefore, it’s unfair to say they’re ignoring it. Your position is correct, from a legal standpoint.
However, Dear Abby is not a legal advice column. It’s an etiquette column. While the pollsters are not obligated to follow the DNC list, they are certainly capable of following it. They have access to a resource that could tell them, with a high degree of accuracy, whether someone wants to hear from them or not, and they choose to ignore that resource. So Dear Abby is correct, from a basic courtesy standpoint.
Quite a few people signed up for the Do Not Call list hoping it would apply to things like surveys as well as telemarketers.
Like others have said - you are clearly NOT applying for a job, or sending a kid to college, nor do you apparently worry or care that family and friends may be calling from a number they don’t ordinarily use.
I’m all for voice mail, but a high percentage of people won’t leave messages for any reason. Sometimes, I can’t afford to ignore calls. That shouldn’t give the intrusive jerks a free pass.
And most people are overjoyed when they find evangelical types at their door who want to convert them. :dubious:
I think it is a fair criticism. Following the law, and following ethical practices, are not necessarily the same thing. Relocating a call center to the United States, to accept and make calls to Canadian residents, only to avoid paying Canadian minimum wage and taxes, is pretty sleazy.
Okay, good. I didn’t want to come off as a jerk arguing for the sake of arguing.
That’s a relief to hear you say that, that’s literally the only point I was trying to make and I thought if I was doing that bad a job of explaining myself I might have had a stroke or something.
Okay, but even then I’d argue that if that was what she meant she’s being a bit naïve to expect more than what the law requires. First, even if it’s a reasonable hypothesis that a high percentage of people who object telemarketers also object to opinion polls, that’s really, really hard to test. There are also people who hate telemarketing calls but feel grudgingly neutral towards opinion polls, or who even revel in the existence of opinion polls and want to kiss Nate Silver on the mouth. If it could be established as fact that everyone on the DNC list also refused to participate in surveys 100% of the time, that would be great for the survey companies, because they’d have a list of people to never waste their time on. Ironically, though, they can’t know that because there’s no way to do an opinion poll about the demographics of people who don’t do opinion polls - all of the respondents will be positive or neutral because everyone who hates them won’t participate. More concretely, a CEO of an opinion poll company who decided that his company was going to use the DNC list on the grounds that people who don’t want to hear from telemarketers might not want to answer opinion polls is getting fired and replaced as soon as the first quarter tanks, because clients are PO’d that their results are skewed by arbitrarily omitting people from the sample and because none of the company’s competitors are doing it. That’s my only beef with her comment, that bringing in what the law requires/allows muddies up the point of etiquette she’s making.
I agree, there are probably a lot of people who still think so, too. That was my original beef with the column - people who still think that will see the column and consider it confirmation that the DNC list legally applies to opinion polls, even if that wasn’t what she meant.