Gov. Snyder, I am not your "customer"

[313WX]

A matter of semantics.

Yeah that cushy $1/year job

Snyder left Gateway in 1997... when it was still growing and very successful.

If these are the things you're complaining about, he must be doing a pretty darn good job... because none of this stuff really has anything to do with the job he's done as governor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Snyder

From 2005 to 2007, Snyder served as the chairman of the board of Gateway. During 2006, Snyder served as interim chief executive officer while a search for a permanent replacement was made. His tenure on the Gateway board ran from 1991 to 2007 until Gateway was sold to Acer Inc.

[313WX]

I'll give credit to Snydely for balancing the budget, even if I don't agree with HOW he did so.

Otherwise, I can't point to anything he's done to improve the quality of life of those in Michigan.

[corktownyuppie]

I'll give credit to Snydely for balancing the budget, even if I don't agree with HOW he did so.

Otherwise, I can't point to anything he's done to improve the quality of life of those in Michigan.

Something worth consideration. According to modern day corporate strategy, corporations with a healthy culture see its primary objective as "serving the customer". Bankers and shareholders are people who need to get paid, but only as much as the market forces them to with remaining resources going to serving the needs of the customer.

So, yes could be semantics. In either case, the bottom line is that when he says the word "customer" he means "boss".

As for improving quality of life, balancing the budget and getting to a healthy economic place is not about improving quality of life in the short-term. In fact, doing so will probably reduce quality of life while you're doing it unless you have some game-changing booster shot of economic growth, such as the internet, social media, etc.

But you balance the budget not to improve quality of life today. You do it to improve it for tomorrow and for many, many more tomorrows.

It would've been nice if we had some major innovation to help propel growth while balancing the budget so that it wouldn't hurt as much. Unfortunately, we had the opposite. Not only were we missing the next Facebook, we tied like an anchor to the sinking ships of the Big 3.

They've had to reinvent themselves in a long, arduous, and painful way. So will the state. But we will get there.

[Scottathew]

Am I the only one whose skin crawls when I hear Gov. Snyder insist on calling citizens "customers"? It makes me want to throttle him and scream that state government is not a "business" and I am not it's "consumer."

In other words, this is a fucking republic, and we are YOUR FUCKING BOSSES!!!

[[end rant)

Snyder's thinking is a positive way. Instead of just thinking of us as taxpayers, he thinks of us as customers and the Government is the service provider. There's nothing negative about it.

I'd be more concerned with how the Detroit City Council thinks of the folks in Detroit. I think they see citizens as pawns that keep them in office as some of them race-bait their way to a ticket to the gravy train.

[313WX]

Snyder's thinking is a positive way. Instead of just thinking of us as taxpayers, he thinks of us as customers and the Government is the service provider. There's nothing negative about it.

I'd be more concerned with how the Detroit City Council thinks of the folks in Detroit. I think they see citizens as pawns that keep them in office as some of them race-bait their way to a ticket to the gravy train.

Assuming they run again, most of them shouldn't get re-elected either.

[Jimaz]

He doesn't give a crap about his "customers" or at least that's what his "customers" think:

From The Free Press a few days ago: Poll: Snyder's approval rating plummets after right-to-work law passes

LANSING — A poll released to the Free Press today suggests that support for Gov. Rick Snyder dropped sharply after he did an about-face in December and backed the speedy passage of controversial right-to-work legislation.

The poll by EPIC-MRA of Lansing, released exclusively to the Free Press and WXYZ-TV [[Channel 7), found that 61% of Michigan voters surveyed between Feb. 5 and Feb. 10 gave Snyder a negative job rating, while 36% gave him a positive rating.
Those numbers contrast sharply with the same firm’s most recent previous poll, conducted at the end of November, when 51% gave Snyder a positive job rating, and 48% gave him a negative rating.

Snyder’s favorability numbers also dropped, to 42% favorable and 46% unfavorable in the recent poll, from 55% favorable and 32% unfavorable at the end of November....

Sneaky, sneaky Snyder.

[Wesley Mouch]

OK, its a little annoying -- but I'm willing to put up with it -- because the point he's trying to make needs to be made. Our government workers need to understand that they have a job, and it is to serve. Customers / Citizens? Who cares. But visit Detroit City Hall, and you'll beg to be treated like a customer.

[Cincinnati_Kid]

He doesn't give a crap about his "customers" or at least that's what his "customers" think:

From The Free Press a few days ago: Poll: Snyder's approval rating plummets after right-to-work law passesSneaky, sneaky Snyder.

To paraphrase, "He's One Tough Turd". Hopefully wishing he's not re-elected. He's putting Michiganders in the poor house.

[louis]

personally, i want to like snyder. i like that he stood up to the republicans on the bridge issue, i like that he balanced the budget, and i can forgive him for passing right to work seeing as it was a clear compromise with the legislator to get regional transit and a slew of other things passed. but when it comes down to it, i have to agree with detroitnerd. my view on Snyder is constantly evolving. Snyder will pass a bill i agree with 100% and then turn around and sign something that makes me want to kick puppies.

[Cincinnati_Kid]

I'll give credit to Snydely for balancing the budget, even if I don't agree with HOW he did so.

Otherwise, I can't point to anything he's done to improve the quality of life of those in Michigan.

Agreed. He's making the quality of life here quite unbearable with his policies. Raising the gas tax and vehicle registrations are definite no-no's. Along with the highest insurance premiums in the nation, who's going to be able to afford to drive?

[ggores]

Recently, school bus was late because of winter. I read statements which referred to school children as "our customers". This kind of fried my eggs. Semantically, it's just a trend, comes and goes. However, these days, poor... even absent.... customer service is a huge gripe. Looking back, Granholm was right. We were blown away.... anyway, I suppose that for all of those who think that municipalities should be run as a business, then a politick is wise to refer to that constituency as "a customer". Kinda makes ya feel like a regular John, eh?

[Wesley Mouch]

Recently, school bus was late because of winter. I read statements which referred to school children as "our customers". This kind of fried my eggs. Semantically, it's just a trend, comes and goes. However, these days, poor... even absent.... customer service is a huge gripe. Looking back, Granholm was right. We were blown away.... anyway, I suppose that for all of those who think that municipalities should be run as a business, then a politick is wise to refer to that constituency as "a customer". Kinda makes ya feel like a regular John, eh?

As this thread rolls, what isn't being said is that the use of these odd words has a purpose. Its to get the staff thinking differently, and we hope more attentively, to the constituency.

Let's put up with these odd words, and let's hope that the efforts of our various leaders to coach their staffs are well-intended and improve our districts and cities.

[313WX]

Agreed. He's making the quality of life here quite unbearable with his policies. Raising the gas tax and vehicle registrations are definite no-no's. Along with the highest insurance premiums in the nation, who's going to be able to afford to drive?

It's cunning in a way, because Snydely knows darn well if we have a job or appointment to be at, we have no choice BUT to drive a car, even in his supposd baby Detroit.

[Hermod]

I see the voters as the "shareholders" that put the executive of the government in place.

I also see the citizens as the customers in those instances where they have to interact with the employees of the government in order to obtain vital service.

As a result, if the citizen is not treated well by the employees of the government, there should be consequences to those employees for not providing the government services for which they are being paid.

Unions should not be allowed to protect crappy enmployees who provide lousy customer services [[as is common in Detroit) and the shareholders [[voters) should bring pressure on the government to assure that the customers are treated like honored guests and not like cattle.

[Mark Smiles]

Am I the only one whose skin crawls when I hear Gov. Snyder insist on calling citizens "customers"? It makes me want to throttle him and scream that state government is not a "business" and I am not it's "consumer."

In other words, this is a fucking republic, and we are YOUR FUCKING BOSSES!!!

[[end rant)

The way I see it you treat your customers with contempt and you are projecting your attitude on Snyder.

[corktownyuppie]

The way I see it you treat your customers with contempt and you are projecting your attitude on Snyder.

This disagreement in language may also be a function of your life experience. If you have the privilege of disposable income, you're accustomed to affording good service. So be seen as a "customer" is a positive thing.

If you're lower income and can't afford good service, you might associate the word with long lines, rude employees, etc. Or if your life experience has your memories of being a customer revolve around being mistreated, hurt, or discriminated against as an expendable and replaceable entity, "customer" is probably a negative thing.

For example, Whole Foods has a policy that whenever there is more than one person in line at a cash register, an associate immediately opens up a new line. There should never be more than one person ahead of you at Whole Foods. Yay! Being a customer is FUN! On the other end of the spectrum, there is a Meijer location where I once went into the store and found that there were zero shopping carts available. I flagged down an associate who shrugged and said, "All our cart people didn't show up today, so you'll need to go back to the parking lot and grab one." Being a customer sucks.

Since we're all here because we care about Detroit, isn't it fair to assume that most of us reasonable in our emotional reactions to language and events? And that perhaps our differences in experience -- rather than malicious intent -- may be what lead us to opposite conclusions?

[mwilbert]

People's relationship to government is more complicated than the business/customer relationship. People just have a lot more kinds of interactions with government than they do with a business. Parts of it are pretty customer-like--if you go to a library, you are very much like a customer, but if you go to a public hearing or a courtroom you really aren't. Does a meter maid have customers amongst the public? I think not.

[Jimaz]

Sneaky, sneaky Snyder is just setting up another "pay to play" scam.

Private sector "customers" must pay for representation or else their interests can be safely ignored. Public sector "citizens" have an inherent right to representation.

By substituting "customer" for "citizen," he's evading telling citizens that there will be an additional bribe they'll need to pay beyond taxes before their interests will be addressed.

Effectively it's nothing but a hidden tax hike.

It's the best government that money can buy which, by definition, is the worst government that can exist.

[KJ5]

Government and business couldn't be more different in purpose and practice.

Businesses, especially corporations, since they represent the apotheosis of business, are there to make a PROFIT. They can be shady pyramid schemes; sell harmful, ineffective products; saddle people with things they don't want or need; produce lengthy contracts that trick people into giving up their legal rights -- none of that matters as long as they turn a PROFIT. Even with that they're not very good at long-term projects. They tend to engage in short-term thinking, sacrificing a trickle of profits over many years for a quick yield in the quarter. Nobody in his right mind should want government run like a business.

Why? Because government is [[allegedly, though I can see anti-democratic, anti-republican trends clear as day in some of these remarks) the instrument through which a people build a stronger nation. Government does UNPROFITABLE things so that we may all live better lives knit together under common goals. It is not profitable to educate students, reform criminals, clean up pollution, inspect and grade food, protect the public safety, put out fires, protect political minorities, feed the poor, and regulate the rich.

If you try to build a government in the image of business, you will find that what you have is not a democratic government at all, but a political machine that sucks money and resources out of its people, delivers it to the powerful, and devastates the environment. You'll end up with a world where food makes you sick, education makes you stupid, entertainment makes you bored, health care kills you, prison makes you more prone to crime, police don't protect you, and you'll find yourself impoverished and enslaved.

Why? Because those profits have to come from somewhere.

Bring that beat back! Best thing I've read on here in a while. When people can't argue against your point and have to result to just insulting you, you've gotta be on the right track.

[Hermod]

People's relationship to government is more complicated than the business/customer relationship. People just have a lot more kinds of interactions with government than they do with a business. Parts of it are pretty customer-like--if you go to a library, you are very much like a customer, but if you go to a public hearing or a courtroom you really aren't. Does a meter maid have customers amongst the public? I think not.

A management technique [[and in my opinion a good one) is to have each section or office to determine who their "customers" are. If an office or staff section are unable to identify "customers" to the satisfaction of the "big boss" there is a presumption that the office is a "self-licking ice cream cone" and can be eliminated. Even in an office which does not deal with the public, internal "customers" can be identified and treated as such. The janitorial staff in an office building has as "customers" the people in the offices of the building and should work to satisfy those customers. The benefits office in an HR department has internal "customers" whose needs should be satisfied.

In the case of a court, they do have "customers" whose needs and comfort should be considered. Having everybody required to show up at 7:30AM, having the judge mosey in around 9:45 or 10:00 and leisurely transact business with anyone not accommodated by 5:00PM being rescheduled for another day is lousy customer service and the person in charge should be raked over the coals.

[corktownyuppie]

Government does UNPROFITABLE things so that we may all live better lives knit together under common goals. It is not profitable to educate students, reform criminals, clean up pollution, inspect and grade food, protect the public safety, put out fires, protect political minorities, feed the poor, and regulate the rich.

??

Maybe we differ in philosophy, but we don't differ in intent. Every single one of those things you mention is a profitable endeavor in the long-term. Dollars spent today on education get paid back tomorrow in economic growth and tax revenue, etc.

Maybe what you're talking about is "short-term profits", in which case I agree with you. No government should be run with short-term profits as its sole and primary objective. But then again, neither should most corporations in the private sector.

It's the short-term quarter-by-quarter thinking that really has Wall Street in a total mess.

[mwilbert]

Government does lots of unprofitable things. Giving anything to old people who aren't going to work in the future is unprofitable. Providing prisoners with anything other than walls is unprofitable. Providing services to profoundly disabled children is unprofitable. Some things government does are not about profit, but about having a society that provides the services that people think should be provided, regardless of profitability.

[corktownyuppie]

Government does lots of unprofitable things. Giving anything to old people who aren't going to work in the future is unprofitable. Providing prisoners with anything other than walls is unprofitable. Providing services to profoundly disabled children is unprofitable. Some things government does are not about profit, but about having a society that provides the services that people think should be provided, regardless of profitability.

I disagree. There is an inherent value to these things which is quantifiable. Giving money to old people who aren't going to work may not be profitable in the moment you give them the money. But you make the United States a more desirable place to live by doing so.

A desirable place to live attracts the most talent which in turn drives up productivity, innovation, revenue...all of which can be used to create a better society which will attract even more talent.

I wouldn't want to live in a world where 1 million old people are walking through the streets begging for money, and so there is a price that we are all willing to pay in order to prevent that from happening.

I guess I look at "profit" differently than the way you are presenting it here. Profit -- to me, at least -- is not about how much value is gained in any individual transaction. It is about how much value is gained over the long-term.

For example, it may have saved a few pennies to outsource every possible job overseas. Yes, I agree, that's "profitable". But I've seen [[but not verified) statistics that say that purchasing locally sourced food brings 10x the amount of money back into our own local economy.

So, sure, I could save $10 on my grocery bill and go to Wal-Mart. Or I could spend it at Ye Olde Butcher Shoppe and see all the money come back into our local economy, resulting in one less blighted building, one less haven for criminal activity, one more service that will attract more people back into the city, etc.

So you tell me, which one is more "profitable"?

[Cliffy]

I'll give credit to Snydely for balancing the budget, even if I don't agree with HOW he did so.

Otherwise, I can't point to anything he's done to improve the quality of life of those in Michigan.

Actually the budget has to be balanced every year in Michigan, its in the constitution. No, he hasn't done anything for me except cost me more money. My state refund was down $500 this year because he took away some credits. Now he wants me to pay more for gas and double for car registrations when my small car isn't the one tearing up the roads, its those loaded semis but the little guy has to foot the bill for big business again.

[Wesley Mouch]

I disagree. There is an inherent value to these things which is quantifiable. Giving money to old people who aren't going to work may not be profitable in the moment you give them the money. But you make the United States a more desirable place to live by doing so.

A desirable place to live attracts the most talent which in turn drives up productivity, innovation, revenue...all of which can be used to create a better society which will attract even more talent.

I wouldn't want to live in a world where 1 million old people are walking through the streets begging for money, and so there is a price that we are all willing to pay in order to prevent that from happening.

I guess I look at "profit" differently than the way you are presenting it here. Profit -- to me, at least -- is not about how much value is gained in any individual transaction. It is about how much value is gained over the long-term.

For example, it may have saved a few pennies to outsource every possible job overseas. Yes, I agree, that's "profitable". But I've seen [[but not verified) statistics that say that purchasing locally sourced food brings 10x the amount of money back into our own local economy.

So, sure, I could save $10 on my grocery bill and go to Wal-Mart. Or I could spend it at Ye Olde Butcher Shoppe and see all the money come back into our local economy, resulting in one less blighted building, one less haven for criminal activity, one more service that will attract more people back into the city, etc.

So you tell me, which one is more "profitable"?

I don't buy into this 'local money' theory so much. Sure, you can overspend for something and the profits might come back to your local economy -- or not. You don't have any control.

If you want money to stay local -- buy at Walmart -- and spend the savings locally.

Buy from YOBS what they do that you want, and buy from WM what sell that you need. There's no guarantee that YOBS will keep your cash in the local economy. They might retire to Ohio.