by Stella Ramsaroop
(Originally published in Guyana's Kaieteur News on 29 June 2007)
Priya Manickchand is on the move again. A press release from the local Government Is Not Accountable chapter (GINA) gave us the good news this week that according to Human Services Minister Priya Manickchand, we should soon see some new regulations to amend the 1996 Domestic Violence Act.
Bravo, Priya! Bravo!
Although the former legislation seemed quite comprehensive, one can certainly understand the assumption that something must be wrong with it since women continue to get beat to a pulp and murdered by men who supposedly care about them.
Hey, I’d rather see the government at least attempt to do something about this ongoing problem rather than ignore it as if it is not really there (like the crime situation). I simply cannot wait to see what good ol’ Poised and Proper Priya has up her sleeve to protect the women of Guyana.
Priya, sweetheart, I know we haven’t talked in quite a while. I do apologise, but I’ve just been so busy of late. I know you are wrapping up those new regulations on the Domestic Violence Act, but I do have a suggestion or two – if you can spare just a couple of minutes.
When I moved into my new home in south central Texas last July, I was quite a bit upset at the high rate of domestic abuse in the area. Which is why I was thrilled when the local police department implemented a new policy concerning domestic abusers in March of this year.
The new policy gave local police the mandate to arrest a domestic abuser on the spot when they enter a home where abuse is evident. Before this new policy, there was a long tedious process that could have taken weeks before the abuser was arrested, but now the police are required to find the abuser as quickly as possible and arrest him.
Sadly, this new policy was brought about because of a man who killed his wife and then killed himself. The wife had called the police earlier and told them the husband had tried to shoot her. The man was nowhere around at the time of the first police response. The wife was dead on the second response.
Now I know the police in Guyana are doing their best to protect the women, but I have heard stories, Priya, and they are not very good. I’m sure you have heard the same stories of women going to the police for help and subsequently being told to “go on home to your husband and make up with him.”
Now you and I both know, Priya, that if a woman is going to go to the police station for help because she is afraid of her partner – she really, really, really needs some help. So for the police to dismiss her request and send her back to a dangerous situation – well, in my eyes the police become part of the problem.
I’ve also heard stories about how these abuse victims – when they are not sent back home - are further victimised at the police station and made to feel like they must have done something to provoke the violence or like they are wasting the time of the police officers.
Now Priya, in light of this information, I cannot help but wonder if it is the Domestic Violence Act that needs to be fixed – or if it is those entrusted with enforcing that law and protecting these women. Maybe it is a little of both.
Perhaps if the police adapted a new policy of arrest immediately when it is apparent that abuse is occurring, then a lot fewer women would be dying every week in Guyana. I know, I know – this would intensify the overcrowding situation in the prison system, but at least the women would be alive.
Ooh, I have an idea. If Guyana built a prison just for these wife beaters and child abusers, and put them all in one building, then they could beat up on each other all they wanted and get a good taste of what their families had to deal with while living with their violent conduct.
Okay, that might be a little extreme. Here is an idea that might be a little more palatable for your political taste. Perhaps you could provide a hotline that women could call to report police officers who do not treat their abusive situation with the proper sensitivity and rapid response.
In case you have not notice, Poised and Proper Priya, I am trying to point out that unless your new National Policy on Domestic Violence and your new National Plan of Action includes a way to enforce the enforcers to enforce the laws, it will make no difference to the women of Guyana.
You can amend laws day and night for the next five years and implement policies until the cows come home, but if those who are suppose to protect the women and children just laugh in their faces when they need help – all of your work is for naught.
When the police realise that domestic abusers are nothing more than terrorists in their own homes, when the law enforcers comprehend that women are not suppose to be beat senseless just to appease the male ego, when the protectors of society start acting like they are going to protect society – that is when your amendments and policies will mean something.
Now Priya, dear, I hope you don’t take our little talk the wrong way. I do appreciate what you are trying to do for the women of Guyana. I am only pointing out the obvious because we cannot live in a fantasy world and pretend these things do not exist while women are dying.
On another topic altogether, I just love your hair, girl.
Email: StellaSays[at]gmail.com
Friday, June 29, 2007
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Stella Says…There is a measuring stick for the nation’s future equality
by Stella Ramsaroop
(Originally published in Guyana's Kaieteur News on 27 June 2007)
While visiting a bookstore recently, I picked up Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s book, The Social Contract, and I stumbled upon a phrase that caught my eye. It was just a footnote at the end of a chapter, but it spoke volumes about how I interpret government at this point in my life.
This philosopher felt it was important for the people of a society to come together and create a social pact that would become law. It was then the responsibility of the government – a group of citizens chosen by the people – to implement and enforce the general will of the people comprised in the social pact.
In order to cite the footnote that caught my eye, it is first necessary to quote the text to which it was linked in the original passage. Rousseau said, “I shall end this chapter…with an observation which might serve as a basis for the whole social system: namely, that the social pact, far from destroying natural equality, substitutes, on the contrary, a moral and lawful equality for whatever physical inequality that nature may have imposed on mankind: so that however unequal in strength and intelligence, men become equal by covenant and right.”
This is one of the primary reasons we have national constitutions, so that we are all bound by the same premise that each person in society is protected by a national agreement that affords equality to all regardless of race, gender, financial status, intellectual prowess, physical strength, etc. This concept, at face value, is one of the better ideologies of governmental systems in existence today.
However, the footnote that caught my eye offered the flip-side perspective on this social contractual agreement among citizens. It said, “Under a bad government, this equality is only an appearance and an illusion; it serves only to keep the poor in their wretchedness and sustain the rich in their usurpation.”
Just this first line alone made my mind whirl with thoughts of the various bad governments in our world today including America and Guyana. Rousseau’s words on this matter seem to ring true if we examine the corrupt practices of our governments.
I live in the US and I need only watch the news for ten brief minutes to learn of yet one more government official who has been made richer by the money of the rest of us. The latest example is the now former U.S. deputy secretary of state Paul Wolfowitz, who even used his position to give his girlfriend hefty pay raises.
In Guyana, there can be no doubt of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. Bribery, corruption and back room deals now run the governmental system – and sadly, even the judicial system.
In such circumstances as these, the equality promised by the social contract – the national Constitution – is only an “appearance and an illusion.” This situation perpetuates an unequal system and promotes the continuation of an oppressive and corrupt government.
As if that was not bad enough, the footnote continued, “In truth, laws are always useful to those with possessions and harmful to those who have nothing; from which it follows that the social state is advantageous to men only when all possess something and none has too much.”
I have always found it highly entertaining and quite ironic that the same PPP that proudly professes its supposed communist principles are the same persons who flaunt their wealthy lifestyles – which puts them far above the financial bracket of the average Guyanese.
For America, Bush and his cronies will be out of office in the next elections. His party does not stand a chance of winning the presidential seat. At this point, it seems America would rather put a woman or an African-American man in the White House (neither of whom have been president in America’s history) before they let another Republican ruin the country for four more years.
I cannot help but wonder about what the Guyanese people will do if they are presented with the chance to make such a drastic change in the next national elections. I truly believed this change could have come in the last elections. I was sorely wrong.
Currently, some places in the nation have wonderful new streets and other places have cratered roads that destroy their cars. Some places have water and electricity and other places do not – or only have it sparingly. Some places have a multitude of choices when it comes to television programming and others have been stripped of those choices for unknown reasons.
I am no oracle, but even from thousands of miles away I can see a dark cloud descending on Guyana. It seems there is a foreboding shadow on the horizon that can only be averted by a genuine application of the nation’s social contract by those who have been ensured with the implementation and enforcement of the citizens’ general will.
As much as my heart goes out to the people of Guyana, the current government is in office for one reason – because the citizens of this nation put it there. What can be said when the people knowingly choose to retain an incompetent government? America did it in the last presidential elections too and look where it has got them - more corruption and made to look like fools in the international community.
If this statement is true, “In truth, laws are always useful to those with possessions and harmful to those who have nothing; from which it follows that the social state is advantageous to men only when all possess something and none has too much,” then all that is necessary to promote lawlessness is a continued state of poverty for the general population.
At this point, one must ask what is being done to promote the financial success of the general population. One must also ask what is being done to discourage the financial success of the general population. The answer to these questions will provide us with a clear motive of any nation’s leaders and present a measuring stick of equality for the future.
Email: StellaSays[at]gmail.com
(Originally published in Guyana's Kaieteur News on 27 June 2007)
While visiting a bookstore recently, I picked up Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s book, The Social Contract, and I stumbled upon a phrase that caught my eye. It was just a footnote at the end of a chapter, but it spoke volumes about how I interpret government at this point in my life.
This philosopher felt it was important for the people of a society to come together and create a social pact that would become law. It was then the responsibility of the government – a group of citizens chosen by the people – to implement and enforce the general will of the people comprised in the social pact.
In order to cite the footnote that caught my eye, it is first necessary to quote the text to which it was linked in the original passage. Rousseau said, “I shall end this chapter…with an observation which might serve as a basis for the whole social system: namely, that the social pact, far from destroying natural equality, substitutes, on the contrary, a moral and lawful equality for whatever physical inequality that nature may have imposed on mankind: so that however unequal in strength and intelligence, men become equal by covenant and right.”
This is one of the primary reasons we have national constitutions, so that we are all bound by the same premise that each person in society is protected by a national agreement that affords equality to all regardless of race, gender, financial status, intellectual prowess, physical strength, etc. This concept, at face value, is one of the better ideologies of governmental systems in existence today.
However, the footnote that caught my eye offered the flip-side perspective on this social contractual agreement among citizens. It said, “Under a bad government, this equality is only an appearance and an illusion; it serves only to keep the poor in their wretchedness and sustain the rich in their usurpation.”
Just this first line alone made my mind whirl with thoughts of the various bad governments in our world today including America and Guyana. Rousseau’s words on this matter seem to ring true if we examine the corrupt practices of our governments.
I live in the US and I need only watch the news for ten brief minutes to learn of yet one more government official who has been made richer by the money of the rest of us. The latest example is the now former U.S. deputy secretary of state Paul Wolfowitz, who even used his position to give his girlfriend hefty pay raises.
In Guyana, there can be no doubt of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. Bribery, corruption and back room deals now run the governmental system – and sadly, even the judicial system.
In such circumstances as these, the equality promised by the social contract – the national Constitution – is only an “appearance and an illusion.” This situation perpetuates an unequal system and promotes the continuation of an oppressive and corrupt government.
As if that was not bad enough, the footnote continued, “In truth, laws are always useful to those with possessions and harmful to those who have nothing; from which it follows that the social state is advantageous to men only when all possess something and none has too much.”
I have always found it highly entertaining and quite ironic that the same PPP that proudly professes its supposed communist principles are the same persons who flaunt their wealthy lifestyles – which puts them far above the financial bracket of the average Guyanese.
For America, Bush and his cronies will be out of office in the next elections. His party does not stand a chance of winning the presidential seat. At this point, it seems America would rather put a woman or an African-American man in the White House (neither of whom have been president in America’s history) before they let another Republican ruin the country for four more years.
I cannot help but wonder about what the Guyanese people will do if they are presented with the chance to make such a drastic change in the next national elections. I truly believed this change could have come in the last elections. I was sorely wrong.
Currently, some places in the nation have wonderful new streets and other places have cratered roads that destroy their cars. Some places have water and electricity and other places do not – or only have it sparingly. Some places have a multitude of choices when it comes to television programming and others have been stripped of those choices for unknown reasons.
I am no oracle, but even from thousands of miles away I can see a dark cloud descending on Guyana. It seems there is a foreboding shadow on the horizon that can only be averted by a genuine application of the nation’s social contract by those who have been ensured with the implementation and enforcement of the citizens’ general will.
As much as my heart goes out to the people of Guyana, the current government is in office for one reason – because the citizens of this nation put it there. What can be said when the people knowingly choose to retain an incompetent government? America did it in the last presidential elections too and look where it has got them - more corruption and made to look like fools in the international community.
If this statement is true, “In truth, laws are always useful to those with possessions and harmful to those who have nothing; from which it follows that the social state is advantageous to men only when all possess something and none has too much,” then all that is necessary to promote lawlessness is a continued state of poverty for the general population.
At this point, one must ask what is being done to promote the financial success of the general population. One must also ask what is being done to discourage the financial success of the general population. The answer to these questions will provide us with a clear motive of any nation’s leaders and present a measuring stick of equality for the future.
Email: StellaSays[at]gmail.com
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Stella Says…The Pope has issued Ten more Commandments (Watch out Moses!)
by Stella Ramsaroop
(Originally published in Guyana's Kaieteur News on 24 June 2007)
On Thursday this newspaper published an article about how the Police Traffic Department will be clamping down on motorists who use their horns indiscriminately. On Friday, Stabroek News published an editorial about steps being taken to improve road safety and to address excessive speeding.
This is all very good news and comes to us just as the Pope has decided to do what he can to improve the global driving experience. The Vatican has released a new set of Ten Commandments specifically designed for drivers. God help us all.
I do not begrudge the Catholic Church its place of leadership in the world. Nor do I think it is necessarily a bad thing for the Vatican to encourage good driving habits. It’s just that I hate to see yet one more set of dogma that must be followed if I do not wish to see the searing hot flames of hell.
Let’s face it - if I ever stood a chance of seeing paradise, I lost it the day I decided to stop being a submissive woman. Almost all the world religions nowadays require a woman to be docile and quick to obey her godlike man. Since I have evolved beyond the need for such teachings, I suppose I can give up on seeing those pearly gates.
But now there are yet more rules and regulations to catch me tripping up – and in the one place I thought I was safe – my car. Is there no place left untouched by religion? I suppose it is a good thing that I gave up trying or I just might be a tad worried about my immortal soul.
Here is a list of the Drivers Ten Commandments as listed by CNN World (and my commentary, of course):
1. You shall not kill. (I thought this one was already taken)
2. The road shall be for you a means of communion between people and not of mortal harm. (Does that mean I must detach the new fire-shooting gun from the roof of my car?)
3. Courtesy, uprightness and prudence will help you deal with unforeseen events. (So I shouldn’t get spitting angry when I run out of gas or when I get a damn flat tire?)
4. Be charitable and help your neighbour in need, especially victims of accidents. (I cannot help but wonder how many times the Pope-mobile has stopped to help roadside victims.)
5. Cars shall not be for you an expression of power and domination, and an occasion of sin. (Not even on days when I like to dress in all black and wear my patent leather power boots? Man, they just want to take away all of my fun.)
6. Charitably convince the young and not so young not to drive when they are not in a fitting condition to do so. (The “not so young”? Oh, they mean Freddie.)
7. Support the families of accident victims. (So they don’t hunt down that drunk driver with their own expressions of power and domination.)
8. Bring guilty motorists and their victims together, at the appropriate time, so that they can undergo the liberating experience of forgiveness. (I love the wording of this one – “at the appropriate time.” If this is done too early, there might be even more forgiveness required and more confessions to be made.)
9. On the road, protect the more vulnerable party. (Like the pedestrians!)
10. Feel responsible toward others. (Okay, so I am my brother’s keeper then. I wish they would make up their minds.)
In all seriousness, I do think the last time I prayed was on my way from the Cheddi Jagan Int. airport to Georgetown during a visit to Guyana. If I ever wanted a god to exist – it was then. It was even scarier than driving in circles up a mountain in the dark in Guatemala in a tiny car piled high with suitcases on top – in the rain with no windshield wipers or guardrails on the side of the road.
Here is a quote from the aforementioned Stabroek News editorial, “Speaking at the relaunching of the National Road Safety Council in May last year, Guyana Police Force Chief Traffic Officer Mr Roland Alleyne disclosed that there had been 1,883 deaths as a result of accidents on the roadways in the period 1995-2006, an average rate of more than three per week for over eleven years!”
Note the use of an exclamation point at the end of that quote. Journalists use this punctuation mark very, very seldom. It is reserved for only the rare occasions when the writer is attempting to make an extremely important point. Perhaps the reader would like to take the time to read that quote again.
I am not sure if the Driver’s Ten Commandments will help to reduce the number of deaths on the roadways of Guyana. The Vatican’s document also suggested citing the Rosary while driving since its rhythm will not distract the driver from the road. If it helps some people, I say go for it.
For this sinner, I have been driving for well over two decades without one accident. I am always courteous to other drivers and I am far too careful to allow car to run out of gas. I think I am doing just fine without the Vatican’s help. However, I do wonder if they could offer us some advice on how to overcome the sexism still so prevalent in the world?
Email: StellaSays[at]gmail.com
(Originally published in Guyana's Kaieteur News on 24 June 2007)
On Thursday this newspaper published an article about how the Police Traffic Department will be clamping down on motorists who use their horns indiscriminately. On Friday, Stabroek News published an editorial about steps being taken to improve road safety and to address excessive speeding.
This is all very good news and comes to us just as the Pope has decided to do what he can to improve the global driving experience. The Vatican has released a new set of Ten Commandments specifically designed for drivers. God help us all.
I do not begrudge the Catholic Church its place of leadership in the world. Nor do I think it is necessarily a bad thing for the Vatican to encourage good driving habits. It’s just that I hate to see yet one more set of dogma that must be followed if I do not wish to see the searing hot flames of hell.
Let’s face it - if I ever stood a chance of seeing paradise, I lost it the day I decided to stop being a submissive woman. Almost all the world religions nowadays require a woman to be docile and quick to obey her godlike man. Since I have evolved beyond the need for such teachings, I suppose I can give up on seeing those pearly gates.
But now there are yet more rules and regulations to catch me tripping up – and in the one place I thought I was safe – my car. Is there no place left untouched by religion? I suppose it is a good thing that I gave up trying or I just might be a tad worried about my immortal soul.
Here is a list of the Drivers Ten Commandments as listed by CNN World (and my commentary, of course):
1. You shall not kill. (I thought this one was already taken)
2. The road shall be for you a means of communion between people and not of mortal harm. (Does that mean I must detach the new fire-shooting gun from the roof of my car?)
3. Courtesy, uprightness and prudence will help you deal with unforeseen events. (So I shouldn’t get spitting angry when I run out of gas or when I get a damn flat tire?)
4. Be charitable and help your neighbour in need, especially victims of accidents. (I cannot help but wonder how many times the Pope-mobile has stopped to help roadside victims.)
5. Cars shall not be for you an expression of power and domination, and an occasion of sin. (Not even on days when I like to dress in all black and wear my patent leather power boots? Man, they just want to take away all of my fun.)
6. Charitably convince the young and not so young not to drive when they are not in a fitting condition to do so. (The “not so young”? Oh, they mean Freddie.)
7. Support the families of accident victims. (So they don’t hunt down that drunk driver with their own expressions of power and domination.)
8. Bring guilty motorists and their victims together, at the appropriate time, so that they can undergo the liberating experience of forgiveness. (I love the wording of this one – “at the appropriate time.” If this is done too early, there might be even more forgiveness required and more confessions to be made.)
9. On the road, protect the more vulnerable party. (Like the pedestrians!)
10. Feel responsible toward others. (Okay, so I am my brother’s keeper then. I wish they would make up their minds.)
In all seriousness, I do think the last time I prayed was on my way from the Cheddi Jagan Int. airport to Georgetown during a visit to Guyana. If I ever wanted a god to exist – it was then. It was even scarier than driving in circles up a mountain in the dark in Guatemala in a tiny car piled high with suitcases on top – in the rain with no windshield wipers or guardrails on the side of the road.
Here is a quote from the aforementioned Stabroek News editorial, “Speaking at the relaunching of the National Road Safety Council in May last year, Guyana Police Force Chief Traffic Officer Mr Roland Alleyne disclosed that there had been 1,883 deaths as a result of accidents on the roadways in the period 1995-2006, an average rate of more than three per week for over eleven years!”
Note the use of an exclamation point at the end of that quote. Journalists use this punctuation mark very, very seldom. It is reserved for only the rare occasions when the writer is attempting to make an extremely important point. Perhaps the reader would like to take the time to read that quote again.
I am not sure if the Driver’s Ten Commandments will help to reduce the number of deaths on the roadways of Guyana. The Vatican’s document also suggested citing the Rosary while driving since its rhythm will not distract the driver from the road. If it helps some people, I say go for it.
For this sinner, I have been driving for well over two decades without one accident. I am always courteous to other drivers and I am far too careful to allow car to run out of gas. I think I am doing just fine without the Vatican’s help. However, I do wonder if they could offer us some advice on how to overcome the sexism still so prevalent in the world?
Email: StellaSays[at]gmail.com
Friday, June 22, 2007
Stella Says…It is time to lose those rude and unseemly employees
by Stella Ramsaroop
(Originally published in Guyana's Kaieteur News on 22 June 2007)
If all the letters and columns about bad customer service from the past five years were thrown in a pile, I have to wonder if the lady who takes my money at my own local store would be able to jump over it.
I have to be honest and admit from the start that this is one of my pet peeves. I abhor bad customer service. My feelings come from the most surprising place – experience. If I ever had one job in my life that I enjoyed more than writing, it would be working as a Customer Service Manager (CSM) for Wal-Mart.
Before taking this position, I had never really given customer service a second thought. It simply never occurred to me that it was the job of the local fast food joint to dole out good customer service with their food.
However, when I took a job with Wal-Mart to make a little extra money years ago when my children were young, I learnt what real customer service is suppose to look like. Regardless of all the bad press that this global retail store gets, it truly attempts to be as customer friendly as possible. This is where my role came in as a CSM.
In my particular store, there could be over 20 cashiers at any time during a normal day – all of which I was responsible. During holidays, this number could double. However, my primary responsibility was to deal with the customers – the happy ones as well as those who were irate.
Wal-Mart had one policy when it came to its patrons, “The customer is ALWAYS right.” This meant that whatever complaint a shopper brought to me, it was my job to resolve it in a manner that would make sure that person returned the next week to shop at our store again.
Moreover, I was to get this job done with a smile on my face and a spring in my step. Problem solving is one of my finer assets and being around all of the people with the constant hum of chatter was simply exhilarating, so it was not a chore to do this job everyday.
There were rare occasions when I would encounter a very mean person who was not going to be happy even if I moved heaven and earth. On those days, I would still do the same job and grab a nice chocolate treat to ease the nerves. I gave 110 percent to my job as a CSM and thoroughly enjoyed every bit of it.
This is why I am so picky when it comes to the customer service I receive from others now. I have gone through the checkout lane at grocery stores on more than one occasion when not one word was spoken to me. Not even the amount of the purchase! I had to look at the register to see how much I owed. This is absolutely intolerable.
One person felt the same way about the customer service received this week after visiting the National Insurance Scheme (NIS) office at Camp and Bent Streets. When it was this client’s turn for service, the company’s representatives laughed at this person for not hearing the name being called from behind the door. This alone is simply unacceptable behaviour.
It got worse though. The patron, Mahendra Persaud, wrote in a letter to Kaieteur News this past week, “As I tried to explain to the female worker why I couldn't hear her repeated calling of my name, she became angry and irritable, ranting and raving. Her ostentation, lack of proper reasoning and failure to be a good listener made me quit my explanation."
If this were one of my cashiers at Wal-Mart, I would have fired this person on the spot. In fact, the entire office would have felt my wrath for being so disrespectful to a client. It is utterly shameful that this whole office behaved in such a manner toward a customer.
This was how the customer felt about the situation, “That was indeed an embarrassing and time-wasting situation for me, which at the same time showed the female worker's immaturity, incompetence, ignorance and arrogance to effectively deal with a simple problem.”
When I was the one overseeing so many service providers, they knew I expected no less of a performance from them than I gave to the customers myself. I expected the best customer service from them because I gave the best.
Nothing has changed for me even though I have not worked in customer service for over a decade. I still expect the best customer service. I absolutely refuse to spend my money somewhere that treats me with anything less than the same respect I give to the people I encounter every day.
Proper decorum in places of business is essential if they want return customers (and word of mouth customers). When I receive bad customer service, not only will I not return to that establishment again, but I will also tell others to follow suit. A single disrespectful employee can lose a lot of money for her/his employer.
Likewise, a pleasant and helpful customer representative will encourage me to return and to tell others to patronise that establishment as well. A good product will only go so far if a business has representatives such as those encountered by Mahendra Persaud at that NIS office.
Customers are doing a business a favour by gracing that establishment. There are other places that customer could have gone to spend money, but she/he chose that business. Is it too much to expect a smile, pleasant service and a “thank you for your business” as the customer leaves?
If a business cannot offer at least that much, then it does not deserve to be patronised at all. After all, there are plenty of people who need jobs right now and would be happy to offer good service to the customers.
It is time for restaurants, stores, businesses and government offices to lose those rude and unseemly employees and replace them with people who would appreciate the job and the customer - and who realise that without the customer there is no job.
Email: StellaSays[at]gmail.com
(Originally published in Guyana's Kaieteur News on 22 June 2007)
If all the letters and columns about bad customer service from the past five years were thrown in a pile, I have to wonder if the lady who takes my money at my own local store would be able to jump over it.
I have to be honest and admit from the start that this is one of my pet peeves. I abhor bad customer service. My feelings come from the most surprising place – experience. If I ever had one job in my life that I enjoyed more than writing, it would be working as a Customer Service Manager (CSM) for Wal-Mart.
Before taking this position, I had never really given customer service a second thought. It simply never occurred to me that it was the job of the local fast food joint to dole out good customer service with their food.
However, when I took a job with Wal-Mart to make a little extra money years ago when my children were young, I learnt what real customer service is suppose to look like. Regardless of all the bad press that this global retail store gets, it truly attempts to be as customer friendly as possible. This is where my role came in as a CSM.
In my particular store, there could be over 20 cashiers at any time during a normal day – all of which I was responsible. During holidays, this number could double. However, my primary responsibility was to deal with the customers – the happy ones as well as those who were irate.
Wal-Mart had one policy when it came to its patrons, “The customer is ALWAYS right.” This meant that whatever complaint a shopper brought to me, it was my job to resolve it in a manner that would make sure that person returned the next week to shop at our store again.
Moreover, I was to get this job done with a smile on my face and a spring in my step. Problem solving is one of my finer assets and being around all of the people with the constant hum of chatter was simply exhilarating, so it was not a chore to do this job everyday.
There were rare occasions when I would encounter a very mean person who was not going to be happy even if I moved heaven and earth. On those days, I would still do the same job and grab a nice chocolate treat to ease the nerves. I gave 110 percent to my job as a CSM and thoroughly enjoyed every bit of it.
This is why I am so picky when it comes to the customer service I receive from others now. I have gone through the checkout lane at grocery stores on more than one occasion when not one word was spoken to me. Not even the amount of the purchase! I had to look at the register to see how much I owed. This is absolutely intolerable.
One person felt the same way about the customer service received this week after visiting the National Insurance Scheme (NIS) office at Camp and Bent Streets. When it was this client’s turn for service, the company’s representatives laughed at this person for not hearing the name being called from behind the door. This alone is simply unacceptable behaviour.
It got worse though. The patron, Mahendra Persaud, wrote in a letter to Kaieteur News this past week, “As I tried to explain to the female worker why I couldn't hear her repeated calling of my name, she became angry and irritable, ranting and raving. Her ostentation, lack of proper reasoning and failure to be a good listener made me quit my explanation."
If this were one of my cashiers at Wal-Mart, I would have fired this person on the spot. In fact, the entire office would have felt my wrath for being so disrespectful to a client. It is utterly shameful that this whole office behaved in such a manner toward a customer.
This was how the customer felt about the situation, “That was indeed an embarrassing and time-wasting situation for me, which at the same time showed the female worker's immaturity, incompetence, ignorance and arrogance to effectively deal with a simple problem.”
When I was the one overseeing so many service providers, they knew I expected no less of a performance from them than I gave to the customers myself. I expected the best customer service from them because I gave the best.
Nothing has changed for me even though I have not worked in customer service for over a decade. I still expect the best customer service. I absolutely refuse to spend my money somewhere that treats me with anything less than the same respect I give to the people I encounter every day.
Proper decorum in places of business is essential if they want return customers (and word of mouth customers). When I receive bad customer service, not only will I not return to that establishment again, but I will also tell others to follow suit. A single disrespectful employee can lose a lot of money for her/his employer.
Likewise, a pleasant and helpful customer representative will encourage me to return and to tell others to patronise that establishment as well. A good product will only go so far if a business has representatives such as those encountered by Mahendra Persaud at that NIS office.
Customers are doing a business a favour by gracing that establishment. There are other places that customer could have gone to spend money, but she/he chose that business. Is it too much to expect a smile, pleasant service and a “thank you for your business” as the customer leaves?
If a business cannot offer at least that much, then it does not deserve to be patronised at all. After all, there are plenty of people who need jobs right now and would be happy to offer good service to the customers.
It is time for restaurants, stores, businesses and government offices to lose those rude and unseemly employees and replace them with people who would appreciate the job and the customer - and who realise that without the customer there is no job.
Email: StellaSays[at]gmail.com
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Stella Says…Here is what I think about celebrity gossip, Cosmo Magazine and the Guyana Media Critic
by Stella Ramsaroop
(Originally published in Guyana's Kaieteur News on 20 June 2007)
So what if Paris Hilton has to spend 24 days in jail? So what if Angelina Jolie may be pregnant again? So what if the Princes of England are all grown up and can finally talk to the public without an escort? So Fidel Castro is now wearing a tracksuit instead of his trademark camouflage uniform. So what?
So Tiger Woods had a baby. So what. So what if the first couple of France’s Socialist party is splitting up? So what if they have put a revolving door on rehab centres for the stars of Hollywood? Do we really care that the President and his wife are getting a divorce? On second thought, maybe we do care about that.
So what if rumours say Bollywood star Aishwarya Rai will play a part in the new US television series, Heroes? So what if Harry Potter and his sidekicks get to meet the Queen? So what if Julia Roberts just had baby number three? Do I really care about any of this stuff? Do you really care? Will any of this information make a difference in our lives?
What difference does any of this information really make for the average women and men of the world? The charmed life of the rich and famous is nothing but a distant dream for those in Darfur struggling just to stay alive.
All of this constant chatter about how poor Paris Hilton cannot handle 24 days of prison is nauseating to me when thousands have died in Bush’s war on Iraq. Will someone please tell me how these frivolous details of the lives of the stars help the rest of us in any way at all? I have had my full of frivolity.
I ran across the latest Cosmopolitan Magazine the other day and was insulted by the captions on the front page. “The Girlfriend Habit That He’ll Love You More For.” “Secrets of Male Arousal.” “What Even Experienced Chicks Forget to Do in Bed.”
Who are they calling a chick?
I did not waste my time by opening this magazine. I am more of a newspaper type of girl. However, I have lived long enough to know that particular Cosmo (like all the rest) would have been chocked full of makeup tips, fashion advice and tons of advertisements. I was offended that Cosmo thought I cared about this shallowness at all.
I understand that I am probably not the target audience for this magazine, but I have daughters who are and it is just as offensive that Cosmo thinks they are so shallow. Is that all they think women care about in life - sex and fashion?
Allow me to correct myself; it was not sex being promoted on the front page of that Cosmo. It was all about how to please the man. There was nothing at all about how to have a mutually satisfying sexual experience. And here I thought this was the 21st century.
While we are on the subject of frivolity, let’s talk about the Guyana Media Critic. You just have to love this guy. He goes after the press like my cat goes after bugs in the backyard. GMC pounces on his unsuspecting victim and eats them alive.
I like it when he points out the obvious - like how a man apparently died from a stab wound to the thigh recently. I was wondering the same thing when I read that article. GMC is obviously a pro in the communications field and the leadership role he has taken in Guyana is admirable.
However, his latest attempt at becoming the next Hugh Hefner by posting photos of women on his blog is disturbing. Mind you, these women all had clothes on (barely), but it was a showcase of female flesh for hungry male eyes nonetheless. After all, why should any woman be viewed as anything more – eh, GMC?
This is a person I have grown to respect over time for his insight into Guyana’s media industry, but how on earth can I take him seriously when he post those types of photos on a blog that has up to the start of June been dedicated to promoting good journalism and addressing other media related issues.
On June 2, he posted a “Chick of The Week” photo. (Did he call that woman a chick?) I had hoped this was just an anomaly since GMC had never shown any signs of objectifying women before on his blog. Then he went and posted a myriad of photos of women again on June 16. Aren’t we just so lucky?
As if Guyana (and the world) needed one more avenue by which to objectify women. Frivolity and shallowness abound and the Guyana Media Critic has now lowered himself to the ranks of Cosmo and other such frivolous entertainment magazines. Congratulations, GMC.
My request to GMC, Cosmo and all those other pushers of superficiality is that you give us something worth our time. We simply do not care about the frivolity. We have enough of that rubbish pushed at us on a constant basis. We need something that is substantial and something that can make a difference in our world.
I did not waste my time by opening that Cosmo the other day. I do not watch the entertainment shows to learn about the latest celebrity gossip. I would hate to have to remove GMC from the bookmarks list on my computer, but if he has nothing better to offer his readers than “Chick of the Week,” then he doesn’t deserve a reserved space on anyone’s computer.
Email: StellaSays[at]gmail.com
(Originally published in Guyana's Kaieteur News on 20 June 2007)
So what if Paris Hilton has to spend 24 days in jail? So what if Angelina Jolie may be pregnant again? So what if the Princes of England are all grown up and can finally talk to the public without an escort? So Fidel Castro is now wearing a tracksuit instead of his trademark camouflage uniform. So what?
So Tiger Woods had a baby. So what. So what if the first couple of France’s Socialist party is splitting up? So what if they have put a revolving door on rehab centres for the stars of Hollywood? Do we really care that the President and his wife are getting a divorce? On second thought, maybe we do care about that.
So what if rumours say Bollywood star Aishwarya Rai will play a part in the new US television series, Heroes? So what if Harry Potter and his sidekicks get to meet the Queen? So what if Julia Roberts just had baby number three? Do I really care about any of this stuff? Do you really care? Will any of this information make a difference in our lives?
What difference does any of this information really make for the average women and men of the world? The charmed life of the rich and famous is nothing but a distant dream for those in Darfur struggling just to stay alive.
All of this constant chatter about how poor Paris Hilton cannot handle 24 days of prison is nauseating to me when thousands have died in Bush’s war on Iraq. Will someone please tell me how these frivolous details of the lives of the stars help the rest of us in any way at all? I have had my full of frivolity.
I ran across the latest Cosmopolitan Magazine the other day and was insulted by the captions on the front page. “The Girlfriend Habit That He’ll Love You More For.” “Secrets of Male Arousal.” “What Even Experienced Chicks Forget to Do in Bed.”
Who are they calling a chick?
I did not waste my time by opening this magazine. I am more of a newspaper type of girl. However, I have lived long enough to know that particular Cosmo (like all the rest) would have been chocked full of makeup tips, fashion advice and tons of advertisements. I was offended that Cosmo thought I cared about this shallowness at all.
I understand that I am probably not the target audience for this magazine, but I have daughters who are and it is just as offensive that Cosmo thinks they are so shallow. Is that all they think women care about in life - sex and fashion?
Allow me to correct myself; it was not sex being promoted on the front page of that Cosmo. It was all about how to please the man. There was nothing at all about how to have a mutually satisfying sexual experience. And here I thought this was the 21st century.
While we are on the subject of frivolity, let’s talk about the Guyana Media Critic. You just have to love this guy. He goes after the press like my cat goes after bugs in the backyard. GMC pounces on his unsuspecting victim and eats them alive.
I like it when he points out the obvious - like how a man apparently died from a stab wound to the thigh recently. I was wondering the same thing when I read that article. GMC is obviously a pro in the communications field and the leadership role he has taken in Guyana is admirable.
However, his latest attempt at becoming the next Hugh Hefner by posting photos of women on his blog is disturbing. Mind you, these women all had clothes on (barely), but it was a showcase of female flesh for hungry male eyes nonetheless. After all, why should any woman be viewed as anything more – eh, GMC?
This is a person I have grown to respect over time for his insight into Guyana’s media industry, but how on earth can I take him seriously when he post those types of photos on a blog that has up to the start of June been dedicated to promoting good journalism and addressing other media related issues.
On June 2, he posted a “Chick of The Week” photo. (Did he call that woman a chick?) I had hoped this was just an anomaly since GMC had never shown any signs of objectifying women before on his blog. Then he went and posted a myriad of photos of women again on June 16. Aren’t we just so lucky?
As if Guyana (and the world) needed one more avenue by which to objectify women. Frivolity and shallowness abound and the Guyana Media Critic has now lowered himself to the ranks of Cosmo and other such frivolous entertainment magazines. Congratulations, GMC.
My request to GMC, Cosmo and all those other pushers of superficiality is that you give us something worth our time. We simply do not care about the frivolity. We have enough of that rubbish pushed at us on a constant basis. We need something that is substantial and something that can make a difference in our world.
I did not waste my time by opening that Cosmo the other day. I do not watch the entertainment shows to learn about the latest celebrity gossip. I would hate to have to remove GMC from the bookmarks list on my computer, but if he has nothing better to offer his readers than “Chick of the Week,” then he doesn’t deserve a reserved space on anyone’s computer.
Email: StellaSays[at]gmail.com
Sunday, June 17, 2007
Stella Says…Should a man be able to demand sex from “his woman” anytime he wants?
by Stella Ramsaroop
(Originally published in Guyana's Kaieteur News on 17 June 2007)
To some the question of whether a woman should meekly oblige her husband with sex without any protest might seem redundant since in today’s day and age this type of thinking simply should not exist.
However, I come from a very traditional background and I know this thinking does still exist within pockets of our culture. In my column from this past Wednesday I addressed the issue of obedience being required from women by certain types of men under the threat of violence if it is not obtained.
Today I am addressing this idea that sex should be expected from the wife and willingly given - even if she does not want it. It is after talking to a few people and after reading Sweet and Sensitive Freddie’s column on wife-killing and wife-beating that I felt the need to address some of these traditional thoughts that still permeate society.
Allow me to make it clear that I do not desire to invoke some sort of battle of the sexes. It is not my goal to separate the two genders, but to bring them together in a spirit of better understanding and equality.
I do not wish to replace the current patriarchal system (a form of social organization in which the male is the family head and title is traced through the male line) with the former matriarchal system (A society or political/social system in which women hold the power) that existed for thousands of years during much of the Neolithic and pre-historic times.
It is my opinion that one gender should not be in power over the other gender at all, but that both genders should lead the world together in unison and equality. I do not believe this merging of the genders will bring any type of utopian society, but it seems to me that when we see both men and women come together to work on the pressing issues facing the world, this is also when we will see humanity at its best.
Which is why I feel obligated to poke holes into the traditional thought that still lingers in regards to the treatment of women. This is why it is necessary to tell women that they are not obligated to obey men anymore. This is also why topics like obligatory sex must be broached in order to dispel the long-standing notions of male superiority.
And so the question at hand is whether a woman should feel obligated to provide sex for her husband at anytime he requests it. The answer, of course, is an emphatic no. Sex is a human act that should be enjoyed by both genders and if both genders do no enjoy the act, then it simply should not happen.
In fact, sex should not be about satisfying just one person while the other lies flat and watches. When the act is done right, both partners are satisfied during sex and no one feels used or abused. This is the beauty of the physical union of male and female.
Putting aside those silly notions most of our parents believed such as proper women should not enjoy sex or desire sex, we all know that in reality women are sexual beings just like men. Women desire sex and think about sex often – just like men.
Therefore, when it is time to have sex, why on earth would any woman decide that she should be a wham-bam-thank-you-ma’am instead of a willing participant of mutually enjoyable act? Selfish partners are such an annoyance, but if you have a man who does not satisfy you sexually, then it is he who needs a lesson or two in this area.
Truth be told, if a man wants frequent sex, then he needs to learn how to effectively seduce his lady – and trust me, women love to be seduced. A little touching here and there, some nice whispers in the ear and a few soft kisses on the neck will go a long way with most women.
Yet some men are so dense that they think they have a right to just walk up and demand sex on the spot. Women do not respond to such demands very well and even if she gives into his demands she will probably feel used when the act is finished – especially if he did not have the common sense or desire to satisfy her.
Old school thought was that sex should be done merely for producing children. We are far past that point in society. Yet this idea that women should be sex toys for men still lingers. What is so ironic about this notion is that when men have an orgasm, they release sperm for reproduction.
This is not true about female orgasms. There is no biological function for the female orgasm in reproduction. Therefore, when a man has an orgasm, it is biologically for the ongoing advancement of our species. However, when a woman has an orgasm – it is for nothing more than her enjoyment.
One could easily deduce from what science currently knows about the male and female orgasms that men are the ones with a function to perform and women are just suppose to enjoy the whole process. Of course, I do not believe either gender should forego the enjoyment of sex, but I simply wanted to point out the obvious.
To answer the question at hand, if a man wants to have frequent sex then he must understand that women are not on earth merely to serve as his plaything. Women are not sex slaves, they are human beings just like men and have needs and desires to be fulfilled just like men.
There are far too many big-headed men walking around thinking they know everything about sex when they do not even know how to take the time to satisfy their own women. There are some who do not care about satisfying their women at all as long as the man is satisfied. Leave these types alone completely – they are not worth a woman’s time.
In short, ladies, the next time your guy has the gall to demand sex without any thought to your feelings on the matter – show him where to find a cold shower and afterwards have a long talk with him about how to please you. Before long you will both be walking around with big smiles on your faces.
Just imagine a world where both the men and the women are sexually satisfied. Gender equality may actually usher in utopia after all.
Email: StellaSays[at]gmail.com
(Originally published in Guyana's Kaieteur News on 17 June 2007)
To some the question of whether a woman should meekly oblige her husband with sex without any protest might seem redundant since in today’s day and age this type of thinking simply should not exist.
However, I come from a very traditional background and I know this thinking does still exist within pockets of our culture. In my column from this past Wednesday I addressed the issue of obedience being required from women by certain types of men under the threat of violence if it is not obtained.
Today I am addressing this idea that sex should be expected from the wife and willingly given - even if she does not want it. It is after talking to a few people and after reading Sweet and Sensitive Freddie’s column on wife-killing and wife-beating that I felt the need to address some of these traditional thoughts that still permeate society.
Allow me to make it clear that I do not desire to invoke some sort of battle of the sexes. It is not my goal to separate the two genders, but to bring them together in a spirit of better understanding and equality.
I do not wish to replace the current patriarchal system (a form of social organization in which the male is the family head and title is traced through the male line) with the former matriarchal system (A society or political/social system in which women hold the power) that existed for thousands of years during much of the Neolithic and pre-historic times.
It is my opinion that one gender should not be in power over the other gender at all, but that both genders should lead the world together in unison and equality. I do not believe this merging of the genders will bring any type of utopian society, but it seems to me that when we see both men and women come together to work on the pressing issues facing the world, this is also when we will see humanity at its best.
Which is why I feel obligated to poke holes into the traditional thought that still lingers in regards to the treatment of women. This is why it is necessary to tell women that they are not obligated to obey men anymore. This is also why topics like obligatory sex must be broached in order to dispel the long-standing notions of male superiority.
And so the question at hand is whether a woman should feel obligated to provide sex for her husband at anytime he requests it. The answer, of course, is an emphatic no. Sex is a human act that should be enjoyed by both genders and if both genders do no enjoy the act, then it simply should not happen.
In fact, sex should not be about satisfying just one person while the other lies flat and watches. When the act is done right, both partners are satisfied during sex and no one feels used or abused. This is the beauty of the physical union of male and female.
Putting aside those silly notions most of our parents believed such as proper women should not enjoy sex or desire sex, we all know that in reality women are sexual beings just like men. Women desire sex and think about sex often – just like men.
Therefore, when it is time to have sex, why on earth would any woman decide that she should be a wham-bam-thank-you-ma’am instead of a willing participant of mutually enjoyable act? Selfish partners are such an annoyance, but if you have a man who does not satisfy you sexually, then it is he who needs a lesson or two in this area.
Truth be told, if a man wants frequent sex, then he needs to learn how to effectively seduce his lady – and trust me, women love to be seduced. A little touching here and there, some nice whispers in the ear and a few soft kisses on the neck will go a long way with most women.
Yet some men are so dense that they think they have a right to just walk up and demand sex on the spot. Women do not respond to such demands very well and even if she gives into his demands she will probably feel used when the act is finished – especially if he did not have the common sense or desire to satisfy her.
Old school thought was that sex should be done merely for producing children. We are far past that point in society. Yet this idea that women should be sex toys for men still lingers. What is so ironic about this notion is that when men have an orgasm, they release sperm for reproduction.
This is not true about female orgasms. There is no biological function for the female orgasm in reproduction. Therefore, when a man has an orgasm, it is biologically for the ongoing advancement of our species. However, when a woman has an orgasm – it is for nothing more than her enjoyment.
One could easily deduce from what science currently knows about the male and female orgasms that men are the ones with a function to perform and women are just suppose to enjoy the whole process. Of course, I do not believe either gender should forego the enjoyment of sex, but I simply wanted to point out the obvious.
To answer the question at hand, if a man wants to have frequent sex then he must understand that women are not on earth merely to serve as his plaything. Women are not sex slaves, they are human beings just like men and have needs and desires to be fulfilled just like men.
There are far too many big-headed men walking around thinking they know everything about sex when they do not even know how to take the time to satisfy their own women. There are some who do not care about satisfying their women at all as long as the man is satisfied. Leave these types alone completely – they are not worth a woman’s time.
In short, ladies, the next time your guy has the gall to demand sex without any thought to your feelings on the matter – show him where to find a cold shower and afterwards have a long talk with him about how to please you. Before long you will both be walking around with big smiles on your faces.
Just imagine a world where both the men and the women are sexually satisfied. Gender equality may actually usher in utopia after all.
Email: StellaSays[at]gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)