MadRedHatter <***@mee.com> wrote in message news:51ohb.57379$***@pd7tw3no...
| Only after his account went delinquent.
So what, they still can't try to work it out. After all, he did try to resolve
the situation by calling them. Of course, he tried to be responsible, but, heh,
they don't need to try. Sure.
| > 2) They cut people off without trying to phone or contact them at the
| Bullcrap .. I have friends who are always late with their bills and
| constantly get notices in the mail.
They have your phone number, they can't call it? But hey, they can send someone
to make sure the get thier $65. Yup, such care, such concern, such
professionalism. We should be really proud of how our City treats people when
| > 3) They charge people who are already in fiscal trouble
| Is it Enmax's job to determine who is in fiscal trouble and who isn't? Can I
| call up Shaw and tell them to stop charging me because I am in "fiscal
| trouble"? Of course not .. Enmax provided a service and they expect to be
Sheesh, no one suggested not paying at all. Would it hurt to defer some part of
the bill for some time? Or set up a budget? Or not charge such high fees? Or, at
least, try to be less avaricious, demanding and inflexible?
| > 4) They charge people too much in general, ie. millions in profits
| Welcome to capitalism 101. Businesses are in existance to make money. Did
| the OP do anything to reduce his power consumption? Was he living outside
| his means?
Capitalism, ROTFLMAO ... corruption is more like it. Oh my, are you naive.
| > 5) They demand a deposit BEFORE reconnection
| Can you blame them? They are taking the risk of reconnecting someone with a
| history of not paying.
Yes, yes I can. What risk? People will be back, everyone needs power. Besides,
there's collection agencies and other avenues. Besides, why is the deposit so
needlessly high. It's just another penalty, in my opinion
| > 6) They don't accept credit card payments
| I can't comment on this as I pay all my bills online. But if I recall can't
| you pay your bills at the most banks? This guy was unemployed .. spend $2
| and take a bus to Enmax.
No, they want you to pay cash and they want you to do it a city hall during
| > 7) They charge people to reconnect
| Yeah .... so?
Yup, that helps the situation. Thiers anyways.
Post by Tom2Tec
8) They charge fees (penalties) in addition to disconnect, reconnect and
| > costs
| Don't default on payments and you'll never see these fees.
Duh, yup must be nice to be always affluent. How is perfection?
| > 9) They seem to deliberately try to disconnect people in order to generate
| > revenue
| I have never heard of a customer who pays their bills on time ever getting
| disconnected and charged for reconnection. Funny how it works that way.
See above. Boy, for a perfect person, you're not very compassionate, caring,
concerned, humane, kind, or understanding, are you?
| > 10) They are the least accommodating of the four public utilities
| You know how many times I have had to contact Enmax in the last 3 years?
| Twice ... once to get power turned on in my old place and another time when
| I moved. Both times the CSR were very friendly and my power was hooked up
| when promised.
Yup, that makes it all ok alright. Now if only everyone was perfect.
| > 11) They only accept payments with faxed proof, even if you don't have a
| fax or
| > even a phone
| Can you blame them? How else would you suggest they get proof? As far as
| having to fax ... Mailboxes Etc.
Yes, remember, the issue here is what happens when people are broke. Oh, hey, I
thought you were perfect, did you overlook something? Awww ..
| > 12) They refuse to connect you with a supervisor
| Never tried to so I can't comment.
So you say nothing?
| > 13) They refuse to negotiate in any way at that point
| Bull! As I stated before I had to call them when I was unemployed and
| negotiated a payment plan so my power didn't get cut off. But I did this
| BEFORE the payment was late.
On this I agree, he should have called earlier. However, many poor people are
simply not as on the ball as you. Enmax needs to deal with all people. They
cannot expect not to have some people who aren't as competent as others. It's
their responsibility to deal with us. Not our responsibility to be perfect.
| > 14) You cannot pay the guy when he comes to disconnect you
| Aren't those guys sub-contractors? Or am I thinking Shaw?
So, he's still there. Oh, and subcontracting. Oh, and hiring subs, that's not
| > 15) They will not accept partial payments
| Bull .. see 13.
Whatever, they could be more flexible and you know it. You're just conveniently
avoiding the issue
| > 16) The "Enmax Customer Advocates" don't return your calls
| Mine were returned
| > 17) The bills have been getting higher and higher for years now
| So is the cost of mustard. It's known as inflation.
LOL, Enmax's bills, fees and penalties have risen far faster than inflation. As
have their salaries. That is the problem.
| > 18) They are no longer responsive or accountable to your alderman's
| Can't comment on this.
Of course, nothing to say eh. Fiqures.
| > 19) They come across as arrogant, demanding, uncaring and unsympathetic
| To delinquent accounts they probably are. To responsible people they are
| quite friendly and accomidating.
Boy, and I bet that helps. Oh, and it's justified. Everbody knows how useful it
is to beat a dying dead or dying horse.
| > 20) The top guy doubled his salary to 600K over the last three years
| And ...? What's your point?
Enmax 'efforts' well paid byDon Braid For The Calgary Herald Friday, October 03,
"Enmax CEO Bob Nicolay earned $698,468 in 2002, well over twice his total
compensation only two years earlier, when he was paid $340,015. In 2001, Nicolay
and other senior Enmax officials also received large extra payments for "special
efforts" in preparing the taxpayer-owned utility for private sale, although it
was never sold. Nicolay got $148,606 in 2001 under the heading "all other
compensation," which includes both the sale efforts and pension entitlements
paid for him by the company. Nicolay's total pay in 2002 certainly vaults him to
the top of the list for Calgary bosses of publicly-owned enterprises. Jack Davis
made $520,000 heading the Calgary Health Region. Dale Stanway, the city's CEO,
earned about $233,000. Nonetheless, Enmax doesn't seem to think facts about
executive pay are news. I do believe they're news, partly because Enmax wants to
get rid of 200 jobs, and is applying to charge customers 11 per cent more for
electricity. This seems to be the wonderful world of deregulation as it applies
to a city-owned utility; higher rates for consumers, higher pay for top
executives and fewer jobs for employees further down the ladder. Nicolay's pay,
and that of other senior officials, is studied annually by a committee and
approved by the board, which includes two aldermen (currently, Dale Hodges and
Bob Hawkesworth.) The salaries were disclosed through a regulatory filing in
July, but Enmax sure didn't fire off any press releases. One thing is certain:
the taxpayers, as indirect owners, have every right to know all the details, and
to ask what we're getting for such whopping salaries at the top. The company is
making more money -- profits went from $44 million in 1999 to $249 million two
years later. As much as $50 million of that comes back into city coffers as a
dividend that can be used for roads, services or to help keep down taxes. But
it's fascinating to compare Enmax with Edmonton's Epcor, also taxpayer-owned,
which holds $4.7 billion in assets compared to $1.2 billion for Enmax, and makes
more than twice the profits. Don Lowry, Epcor's CEO, made $706,000 in 2002, just
$8,000 more than Nicolay. You can hardly blame Nicolay for taking the money. The
question is, does Enmax's position as a rather small utility justify such
compensation? Enmax certainly thinks so. "Compensation is no different at Enmax
than at most companies," says spokesman Tony McCallum. "It's based on the
midpoint of what most companies are paying for similar positions. It's also
based on individual performance and the company's success at meeting its
targets." The Calgary customer/owner, facing another rate hike, might have
another view of success, and what these people should be paid. In 2002,
Nicolay's earnings of $698,468 were comprised of $390,260 in salary, $230,000 in
bonus, $11,400 as "other annual compensation" and $66,808 under the heading "all
other compensation." In 2000, his total pay of $340,015 was made up of $225,000
in salary, a bonus of $80,000, and $35,015 under the two headings of "other
compensation." Sean Durfy, vice-president of unregulated business, made a total
of $356,175 in 2002, up from $229,715 in 2000. Executive vice-president Randall
Henderson, who joined Enmax in 2001, earned $333,662 in 2002. Karen Anne
Prentice, vice-president of legal affairs, made $311,997 in 2002, compared to
$205,995 in 2000. Customer service vice-president Lori Rae Topp, who has since
left Enmax, was paid $294,545 in 2002. She had joined the company in 2001. These
executives saw substantial jumps in their extra pay during 2001, for "one-time
compensation for special efforts rendered during the proposed sale of Enmax." In
the regulatory sense, this was all properly disclosed. But there was no effort
whatever, either from city hall or the company, to make the public aware of the
facts. For a taxpayer-owned enterprise, that won't do."
| > 21) They could limit your power consumption instead of cutting you off
| > completely
| How can they limit your power? No power between certain hours? I am sure
| people would be pissed to have their freezer full of food spoiling. Cut the
| power by 50%? Wouldn't this play havoc on any electrical device you have?
They have and can use a device that limits wattage. No, no it only means you can
only run one thing at a time. It's an inconvenience, but it allows your furnace
to maintain heat, and your fridge to keep all your food from spoiling. By law,
they must use it in the winter. Of course, without the law, I'd bet they
wouldn't bother. Face it, they're uncaring and self serving. They don't give a
sh*t if people freeze or starve,
| > 22) A court has already said that the penalties they used to charge were
| > yet the new fees that replaced them are even higher, of course, theyr'e
| > called the same
| I hadn't heard this. Got any citations?
Yup, why can't you do your own research?
Hobsbawn v. Enmax Corporation and The City of Calgary
| > I've spoken with every level of management at Enmax recently and I can
| > from personal experience. I believe that the upper management at Enmax are
| > simply in self serving denial. They believe that all of their policies are
| > justified and they don't see any need to change anything. They also don't
| > that the public has the right to question what they consider is private
| > policy. They also think that cutting of customers in such a manner is
| > and conscientious customer service. I know this because I've questioned
| > policies and procedures directly with the person who is in charge of
| > implementing them. He is absolutely convinced he's fully justified in
| > people in the way he sees fit without needing to consider any
| Might I ask what circumstances forced you to speak with every level of
| management? Except for the two times (as I mentioned above) I have never had
| to contact anyone at Enmax.
Sure you can ask. What difference would it make? We weren't discussing my
| Why should Enmax be responsible for people who can't manage money? Do you
| think Visa would be all "Aww shucks mister .. you spent all your money on
| beer and smokes and can't pay us? That's all right, you can catch us next
Duh, Enmax isn't Visa, it's monopolistic public utility which provides a
necessity, that's why they are responsible. Why do I bother explaining this to
you. Obviously you can't get it. IMHO, it appears that you're just not caring or
deep enough or you're too biased. Sad really.
| Can you imagine how many people are late with their bills or don't pay at
| all? Enmax has bills of their own to pay as well. If you ran a business and
| provided a service would you take the excuse of not being able to balance
| your checkbook from your customers?
I have and do run a business. I did and do better, and I didn't and don't expect
excessive compensation. Nor did I have my customers over a barrel.
| Enmax's responsibility? As I see it they need to provide me with electricity
| 24/7. And I have always received that from them. (of course with the
| exception of interruptions out of their control .. ie: weather). They are
| not there to cut the little guy some slack. They are there to make money.
| They area business.
No, they don't. Never had a power outage? Ever been compensated? By the way,
they aren't a business, they're a utility, and a public one. Get over it. Face
facts. Stop twisting words.
| What basis do you have to make the comment "our bills should be getting LESS
| expensive "? Should a company stop making money after a certain point?
See above. It's the same lame and false argument.
| "We're penalized when we don't conform to their policies"?? Well duh! What
| good would policies be if there were no penalties for breaking them?
| Bottom line is if you are responsible with your bills, live within your
| means and take measures before your account becomes delinquent you won't
| have any problems.
Ahh, Mr. The World Is Perfect, so therefore others must be losers attitude.
That's just a shallow justification for the mistreatment of others in my view.
2tec ~ thinks bullies are bad.
On December 11th Enmax filed its Regulatory Rate Option with Lethbridge City
Council. Included in the rates is a $10.00 per month charge for invoice
processing. This appears to be the cost of an envelope and postage. The charge
is excessive and negates half of the monthly rebate provided by the provincial
government, guaranteeing that regulated rate option customers in Lethbridge will
pay more in 2001 than in 2000. Enmax would not appear to be a company that has
the customers interests at heart. Customers who choose Enmax may be
inadvertently subsidizing the city of Calgary.