madlee wrote:alex maiolo wrote:Working Assets is full of shit. They have an agenda just like everyone else. Do you know why they spend so much time slamming phone companies (they hit Verizon too)?
I'll give you a hint: Working Assets resells long distance and phone services.
I dropped them like a rock after I investigated their energy service.
so what? your post doesn't make any sense. It doesn't address anything.
Why is WA full of shit? Because they want to increase market share?
What's the agenda? giving money away?
give some details.
My post doesn't make sense? WA is sniping at industries that they compete with not because they are bad, but because they are competitors.
Maybe it's vague, but I don't see how it doesn't make any sense.
Here's more detail:
Working Assets is supposed to be the "good" company, right? Well, they sent out a bunch of mail last year slamming Verizon because they were supposedly a bad company. All huge companies are bad in some way, but Verizon has a history of being a good employer - "Top 10 to work for" and all that. For christ's sake they get an almost perfect score from the group that rates top places for gay/lesbian/transgender fairness and outreach.
Later they did the same thing about AT&T. I don't know anything about AT&T, but I learned a lot when I investigated the Verizon claims, so I'll just run with that.
I have no problem with WA exposing the shittiest things in the world, which they want to change. I love the fact that they give some money to good causes.
I also know that their top execs get paid a shit ton more than most do-gooder companies get paid, and a lot of them have histories doing hatchet job work for whoever would pay them. They don't give away *that* much money either.
It's one thing to say that you're better than your competitor. WA, however, is in a unique position of being a liberal cause mouthpiece. Doesn't it seem like a conflict of interest that they've made a bugaboo out of a competitor who is considered a decent employer and corporate citizen? Yes, they give money to Republicans, but they also give money to Dems. About 50/50, like a lot of companies.
What I'm saying is there are MUCH worse companies who are not in their sites.
As an analogy, say you hired a security service. They seemed to be pretty good. Then they essentially spooked you into thinking the other security services in town were run by criminals, instead of spending time watching the sketchy characters who have been casing your house each night.
Another example:
WA purports to offer "green" electricty.
The Center for Renewable Energy and Sustainable Technology (CREST) did a report on how this can, or rather *can't* be done.
WA is just a reseller. They resell Sprint on the wireline end, and in New England, they resell New England Power Company's (NEPCO's) sevice.
WA and and a co-op called Green Mountain Energy Partners claim they don't sell any power that was made by coal or nuclear means. NEPCO only gets 20% of their power from green sources. The other 80% comes from the traditional "bad" ways.
How can they guarantee the power is green if they are just reselling/rebranding NEPCO? How do they separate "good" electrons from "bad" electrons?
From the CREST study:
Working Assets Green Power lists the resources it does not use: nuclear power, coal or Hydro-Quebec. Price: 3.5 cents per kWh. However, it is unclear how Working Assets, which buys its power from New England Power Company, can avoid the power produced from New England Power's coal plants. It is unclear how effective these green marketing efforts have been, but Green Mountain Energy Partners reported signing up the second-highest number of customers among the competing suppliers in New Hampshire.
So, a group that's dedicated to sustainable energy has shown that Green
marketing works great. "Green" companies charge more to resell power you could just buy direct from NEPCO because they seem to have a way to guarantee all of the power generated by nuke plants and coal goes to your neighbor's houses, but not yours. How do they do that again?
Hoodwinking people into thinking they are doing good doesn't get good done. I would argue that it's worse for the cause overall, even if a little bit of the money ends up going to good causes. Why? Because it doesn't promote real change. People who
think they are buying Green Power stop demanding change. At least when the regular companies tell you that they are getting power from coal they are being somewhat transparent.
Concerned, I wrote three top execs at Working Assets to get answers to these questions. I didn't accuse anyone of anything, I just said the whole thing was making me uneasy and I wanted to know how they were as good as they say, based on thes conclusions and the CREST study.
No answer.
I asked again, and copied customer service on it too, in hopes of getting just a form letter "thank[ing] me for my concern" with an attached FAQ.
No answer. I may be wrong to have done so, but I concluded that these guys are just a bunch of sham artists using "green" and "responsible" as a way to get people laden with liberal guilt to pay them money.
Maybe I'll open a "Green" gas station and buy my fuel from Exxon.
Why is it green?
Because I said it was! Plus, I give 1% of my profits to good causes! Of course profits come after salaries, and I plan on paying myself a really big salary before I do anything.
-A