Reducing Gift Card Fees Is The Pro-Consumer Thing To Do Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Posted by savvyconsumer in John Breyault, Sally Greenberg, finances, the economy.Tags: banks, credit, fees, gift cards, retail
4 comments
By John Breyault, NCL Vice President of Public Policy, Telecommunications, and Fraud
With the holiday shopping season quickly approaching, many consumers have started to think about what to give loved ones, friends, co-workers, and others who manage to make the list this year–a harder feat for many, given the current economy. While many shoppers will spend hours looking for “just the perfect thing,” many others will choose to give gift cards instead.
As anyone who has given or received a gift card in recent years can attest, today’s gift cards are not the flimsy paper gift certificates of yesteryear. (Remember those?) Almost every major retailer, bank, and credit card company offers gift cards, and they can be used as easily–in most cases–as a credit or debit card. This has driven an explosion in the popularity of gift card sales. In 2007 alone, the industry totaled up $97 billion in sales, up from $83 billion in 2006. To put that number is context, the entire FY2009 budget for the Department of Homeland Security was $58 billion.
Last year, 7 out of 10 Americans received a gift card during the holiday season. (Great gift-giving minds think alike, eh?) Unfortunately, many consumers who have given or received gift cards have also noticed the cost of that convenience: fees, and lots of them.
Gift cards issued by retailers (known as “closed-loop” cards) tend not to charge many fees since they make their money on the markup on merchandise and services. However, the cards issued by banks, credit card companies, and shopping malls — known as “open-loop” cards because they can be used at multiple retailers -– tend to pile on the fees. From fees charged for the “privilege” of buying the cards, to maintenance fees that deduct value from the card after six months, or even fees charged to check the balance on the card (not to mention the fees the card issuers get from merchants when the cards are swiped), these cards are veritable ATM machines for issuers.
We believe that wherever possible, the money consumers invest in gift cards should stay in their pockets. This is why today we are joining with Consumer Action and the Montgomery County (Maryland) Office of Consumer Protection (OCP) to launch the “Gift Card Holder’s Bill of Rights.” The bill of rights spells out ten pro-consumer steps that gift card issuers can take to make gift cards a better deal for consumers. Given the fact that the economic crisis is likely to make this gift-giving season especially hard on consumers, we believe that gift card issuers should give consumers a break and eliminate or reduce their most egregious fees.
From NCL’s press release announcing the Gift Card Holder’s Bill of Rights:
“With the worst economic times in a generation looming and many Americans facing job loss, decreased wages, and increases in the cost of health care, groceries, and other goods, this holiday gift-buying season may be a source of dread, not joy, for consumers watching their budgets,” said Sally Greenberg, NCL Executive Director. “The companies who profit from the rise in popularity of gift cards owe it to consumers to reduce their fees and expiration dates, improve the value of their cards, and compete for consumers’ business.”
While we wait for card issuers to improve their terms and conditions, there are several common-sense steps that consumers can take right now to avoid getting stuck with gift cards that deliver less value than they promise. We encourage you to check out the practical consumer tips in the new gift cards section of our Web site to learn more.
A final bit of parting advice: Think of giving gift cards like giving a fruit basket. It’s a wonderful gift that can bring plenty of enjoyment, as long as they’re used up before the fruit goes rotten. Like fruit baskets, make sure and use up those gift cards early to avoid getting pickled by costly fees and expiration dates.
Flying the Friendly Skies Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Posted by savvyconsumer in National Consumers League, Sally Greenberg, worker's rights issues.Tags: air travel, baggage fees, Communications Workers of America, USA Today
1 comment so far
by Sally Greenberg, NCL Executive Director
I write from a US Airways flight traveling cross-country from Portland to Philadelphia. At the ticket counter this morning, I was chagrined to be reminded that checking my luggage – one piece – would cost me $15. This is the first time I’ve ever paid to check luggage. Getting out to the West Coast for a conference on Southwest Airlines recently, I didn’t have to pay to ship my bag, and I flew from San Diego to Portland on Alaska Air and didn’t have to pay for the bag then either. Despite my recent varied experiences, the US Airways employees at the checkout counter claimed “every airline” is charging for luggage.
Once on the plane, the flight attendant rolled the cart past with drinks and snacks and headphones, announcing that cans of soda pop would cost $2.00, headphones $5.00, and snacks were available for 5 or 10 bucks.
This conversation followed the pricing announcement:
Me: You guys at US Air are the worst on nickel and diming consumers
Flight Attendant: Don’t say ‘you guys.’ Our union fought management on all these charges.
Me: Who is your union?
Flight Attendant: Communication Workers
My ears perked up. The Communications Workers of America holds a seat on the National Consumers League’s Board of Directors. My curiosity piqued, I made my way to the back of the plane a little later and struck up a conversation with two US Airways employees. Turns out that the employees haven’t had a raise in years. In fact, they tell me they’ve taken a series of pay cuts over the past decade.
Yes, of course, we all know the airline industry has been hit very hard by the increase in fuel prices, but those same prices have fallen significantly in the past several months, and the airlines are still collecting the same fuel surcharges on international flights. USA Today reported on October 28 that, “Despite lower jet fuel prices, fuel charges on international tickets are much higher than a year ago.” Domestic fares – 60 percent – also have fuel surcharges averaging around $170 a flight, though Southwest Airlines doesn’t tack on a fuel surcharge, and USA Today says US Airways has reduced its domestic flight surcharges by 11 percent, noting that the prices still aren’t coming down in proportion to jet fuel prices. All of this has prompted U.S. Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ) to write to 11 airline CEOs, asking them to reduce fuel charges as soon as possible. Industry spokespeople defend the increases, arguing that fuel increases were significant and have been dropping only recently.
Meanwhile, US Airways is also pocketing more cash by demanding that consumers pay to check a single bag of luggage, and (talk about cheapskates!) asking me to pay two bucks for a soda! In 2007, US Airways executive William Douglas Parker raked in $5,444,996 in total compensation, according to the Securities and Exchange Commission. While large airlines fuel surcharges are estimated to add $10-20 million a year, neither US Airway employees nor consumers seem to reap the added revenues. If the airlines need to charge more for tickets, do it. But don’t call it a fuel surcharge and double the amount when the cost of fuel is down significant. It is business practices like this – and paying the CEO a 5.5 million-dollar-salary while forcing airline employees to take pay cuts – that make consumers and workers cynical about business.
Women Paying More for Health Coverage? Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Posted by savvyconsumer in Sally Greenberg, finances, health, kids, the economy.Tags: gender discrimination, health insurance, Josephine Roche, Kaiser Family Foundation, New York Times
1 comment so far
By Sally Greenberg, NCL Executive Director
According to a recent article in the New York Times, women buying individual health insurance policies are often paying significantly more than men their same age. The Times reviewed data from multiple insurance providers and online brokers and found that women are often paying well over 30 percent (sometimes closer to 50 percent) more in premiums than their male counterparts. For many consumers who have recently lost their job and health benefits, or for those making a switch from employer-sponsored insurance to the individual market for some other reason, it’s important to be aware of these practices.
This doesn’t sit right with me. The National Consumers League, a longtime proponent of health care for all, has long advocated for universal health coverage. In fact, before coming to NCL and serving as our president in 1940, Josephine Roche penned the first national health care bill while working for FDR’s administration. As a champion of economic and social justice for workers and consumers, NCL opposes such discrimination.
One of the main explanations for charging women more than men is that they are using more health services. Yes, women have babies, and giving birth is expensive. But you can’t punish women for that! Indeed, it’s in society’s best interest to see that babies are born healthy and with good prenatal care and that their mothers receive good care as well. The stress of not doing so is bad for the mom and for the baby. Moreover, aside from maternity care, women make better use of preventive health care services, which is exactly what health care experts tell us to do: get the check-ups, the mammograms, and the pap smears.
Studies have shown that investing in prevention can help delay – and even prevent - the onset of many chronic conditions, which account for a significant majority of the health care spending in this country. This is particularly important given that middle-aged women are disproportionately affected by certain chronic conditions such as asthma, obesity, arthritis, and certain cancers.
Many policy makers are speaking out. In both houses of Congress, leaders are asking why and how insurance companies can claim they are meeting the needs of women when the health care coverage is tough to attain, inefficient or incomplete, and more expensive. The Times article also reports that states such as Maine, Montana, and New York are “prohibiting sex-based rates in the individual insurance market.” Earlier this summer, the LA Times questioned insurers’ process for determining risks. We consumers are alarmed to learn that we may be charged more for (or even denied) coverage based on gender, race, or ethnicity.
The Kaiser Family Foundation reports that there are close to 17 million women (roughly 18 percent of women) who remain uninsured in this country, many of whom cannot obtain insurance because they work part-time or with companies that do not offer insurance. Of the 77 million or so women fortunate enough to have coverage, 6 percent purchase their own coverage, and that is where women end up paying more than men and where their coverage often falls short, (a number likely to rise in these bad economic times), often excluding mental health, family planning, and maternity care services.
We will work with policymakers to fix the unfair treatment women experience in the health insurance marketplace and to see that any additional expense related to maternity and childbirth are costs shared by all of us.
Hill Briefing Exposes Ugly Reality of Child Prostitution Monday, November 3, 2008
Posted by savvyconsumer in Reid Maki, child labor, entertainment industry, global issues, kids, legislative issues, worker's rights issues.Tags: Capitol Hill, Eliot Spitzer, Pretty Woman, prostitution, sex trades, Taxi Driver
add a comment
By Reid Maki, Child Labor Coalition Coordinator
In the film “Pretty Woman,” Julia Roberts plays a glamorous prostitute whose life doesn’t seem so bad. But the ugly truth about prostitution is that it’s a very dangerous world to inhabit: violence is common and the health risks are grave. The Julia Roberts character seems more or less in control of her life. In reality—I learned at a Capitol Hill briefing October 21—many of the women who enter prostitution are actually young girls forced into the trade by their unscrupulous handlers.
I remember seeing the film “Taxi Driver” when it came out in 1976 and thinking that the 12-year-old prostitute played by Jodie Foster was too young to be realistic. I was wrong. In fact, the average age of girls getting into this profession today is 12 to 14, according to Rachel Lloyd, the founder and executive director of Girls Education and Mentoring Services (GEMS), a New York-based group that is working to end the sexual exploitation and trafficking of young women.
