Triple-A has been American drivers’ friend almost since U.S. roads linked the nation together. It has rescued families from flat tires and worse. It has planned millions of family vacations and sold well-regarded auto insurance. It has always skewed toward older drivers and welcomed their devoted renewal of memberships. Its employees got good benefits and stayed with the organization.

For all those reasons, it’s a shock to hear that-at least in Northern California-AAA is dumping senior employees like so much excess baggage, according to a lawsuit filed by 10 of them. At AAA’s California State Auto Club branch, successful veteran insurance agents report being fired or forced out and replaced with younger, cheaper hires and call center employees.

Drivers who have kept up their AAA memberships for decades should be steamed about this on principle. But there are practical reasons to be angry, especially for drivers with AAA auto, home or boat insurance.

The laid-off AAA insurance agents are the people you would have called if you had a policy question or problem with a claim. Or if you wanted to add your child to a policy. Or maybe just for advice-for instance about whether a rental car is covered or whether your auto insurance is good in Canada.

Where are you going to get that help now? Who you gonna call?

Your file would likely become a “house account,” often with no agent assigned. Maybe the call center kid can find your file, put you on hold and hunt for a manager to help him figure it out. The hourly workers answering the phone won’t know you from Adam.

If the same thing is going on at other AAA chapters, it’s not likely the public will know unless more lawsuits emerge.

The “why” of these dismissals is not complicated. Insurance agents get bonuses when they sell new policies and smaller yearly payments from the insurance company as policies are renewed. The agents are expected to earn your loyalty and keep you in the fold.

The senior agents service up to thousands of policies built up by sales over the years. This takes time, so they may sell fewer new policies.

By dismissing the agents, CSAA gets to keep their yearly servicing payment.

CSAA’s bet is that you won’t care enough to endure the thrash of taking your business elsewhere. The fact that anyone laid off at age 50 is unlikely to ever find a comparably paying job? Not AAA’s problem.

Layoffs off of older, higher-paid employees are nothing new in modern corporate culture. But this is a case when the fallout also harms the customer in a direct way. It’s worth thinking about before you dial the number on the AAA insurance brochure you got in the mail.

Posted by Judy Dugan, Research Director Emeritus for Consumer Watchdog

In response to our Consumer Alert exposing the Prop 33 campaign for using paid campaign employees in their TV ads, the insurance industry-backed Proposition 33 campaign issued a statement to the LA Times Opinion blog – excerpts below – stating that “the two women in their ads were simply volunteering their stories in support of the effort to pass Proposition 33.”  That disingenuous response begs the question:

Is a Paid Employee a Volunteer? I guess if you can call charging people more for their auto insurance simply for not driving a “discount,” then why not call an employee a volunteer?

California election law requires campaigns that use paid spokespeople in their ads disclose this within the ad.  Nowhere in these ads do the proponents disclose that the two women work for the PR firm that is being paid over half a million dollars to run the Yes on 33 campaign.  That is why we filed an official complaint with the California Fair Political Practices Commission asking them to investigate the ads for violating election law.

If you feel that the public has a right to know when the people in campaign ads are being paid for their opinions, then watch our Consumer Alert and share with your friends and networks to help us combat these insurance-industry lies.

Excepts from the:

October 3, 2012

“Marketplace argues that it didn’t violate the law, and that may be technically correct. But the campaign misleads the public by presenting employees of its political consultant as disinterested consumers who just want a break on their insurance premiums…That seems par for the course for backers of Proposition 33, the latest in a long series of efforts by Mercury Insurance founder George Joseph to undo part of 1988’s Proposition 103.”

“In its response Tuesday, Marketplace said: ‘We encourage Consumer Watchdog to continue drawing attention to the ads because the message they deliver is both honest and direct.'”

“…The message is direct, all right, but it isn’t honest.”

_______________________________________________________

Posted by Daniel Palay, New Media Director of Consumer Watchdog Campaign and supporter of StopProp33.com.  For more information on the campaign visit us on Facebook and Twitter

You won’t believe this!

The insurance billionaire behind Prop 33 isn’t just lying about his phony proposal in the television ads airing this week. He is actually using paid employees to impersonate “real drivers” and not disclosing it to voters. We have the proof in this short video.

Please watch the short video exposing the Prop 33 campaign’s big lies and share it with all the California voters you know to warn them.

Campaign finance law requires that campaigns disclose if they are using paid spokespeople in their television ads, but the insurer-funded Prop 33 campaign didn’t disclose to viewers that it used two employees of its paid PR firm in advertisements to pose as average drivers.

You can help spread the word. Watch the short video and post it to your Facebook, Twitter and other accounts.

California voters shouldn’t be deceived by one insurance billionaire, Mercury Insurance’s George Joseph, who has spent $8.4 million to pass Prop 33.  Our friends, family and co-workers deserve to know the truth.

When was the last time an insurance billionaire spent $8.4 million on a ballot measure to save consumers money?

Please join us in warning California voters.

_____________________________________________________

Posted by Jamie Court, President of Consumer Watchdog Campaign and leader of StopProp33.com.  For more information about the campaign visit us on Facebook and on Twitter.

Consumer Advocates Say Prop 33 Means Auto Insurance Rate Hikes of 33% or More

The newly numbered Proposition 33, funded by Mercury Insurance’s billionaire Chairman George Joseph, is a replay of Mercury’s unsuccessful 2010 initiative aimed at raising auto insurance premiums on millions of Californians.

According to the Attorney General’s official title of the initiative, Prop 33: “Changes Law to Allow Auto Insurance Companies to Set Prices Based on a Driver’s History of Insurance Coverage.” The Attorney General’s summary explains that Prop 33 “Will allow insurance companies to increase cost of insurance to drivers who have not maintained continuous coverage.”

Prop 33 aims to change over 20 years of insurance law by repealing a key anti-discrimination provision from the 1988 voter initiative Proposition 103. In addition to broadly reforming insurance rates in California, Proposition 103 specifically prohibited an insurance industry redlining scheme first brought to public attention by the 1985 California civil rights case King v. Meese. While Prop 103 made that scheme illegal 24 years ago, Prop 33 would rollback that protection and revive this discriminatory practice by insurance companies that particularly targets low-income and other Californians struggling financially.

Consumer advocates opposing Prop 33, including Consumers Union, Consumer Federation of California and Consumer Watchdog, say that Prop 33 is another deceptive insurance company trick to raise auto insurance rates for millions of responsible drivers in California. While the insurance industry backers of Prop 33 promise that it will give people discounts, the measure is actually designed to get around an existing law that prevents unfair surcharges on good drivers.

Prop 33 allows insurance companies to charge dramatically higher rates to customers with perfect driving records, just because they had not purchased auto insurance at some point during the past five years. Drivers must pay this unfair penalty even if they did not own a car or need insurance at the time.

“The insurance companies are at it again with another deceptive initiative that says one thing but does another,” said consumer advocate Douglas Heller with Consumer Watchdog Campaign. “When an insurance billionaire spends millions of dollars on a ballot measure, hold onto your wallet. Prop 33 is the newest edition of Mercury’s long-running effort to give insurance companies a new way to unfairly raise auto insurance premiums.”

Mercury Insurance Chairman George Joseph has already spent eight million dollars on Prop 33 and will likely spend more than the $16 million spent by Mercury for its 2010 initiative, according to consumer advocates. Prior to his serial attacks on consumer rights at the ballot box, Joseph and his company pushed for legislative repeal of the consumer protection laws, but that change was ruled illegal by the California Court of Appeal.

About ten years ago, Mercury was caught illegally surcharging many of its customers using the same so-called “continuous coverage” scheme proposed in Prop 33. At the time, Mercury added a 40% surcharge on drivers with perfect records who did not have prior insurance coverage at some point in the past, even if they did not need coverage. In other states where Mercury is allowed to add the Prop 33 surcharge, rates jump by 50% to 100% and sometimes more.

“Wherever Mercury has imposed the financial penalty that would be allowed under Prop 33, premiums for many drivers skyrocket,” said Heller. “When California voters go to the polls in the November, they should ignore the insurance industry’s slick ad campaigns and simply remember that Prop 33 will raise auto insurance rates by 33% or more.”

Prop 33 would increase premiums for Californians who stopped driving for legitimate reasons, including:

• graduating students entering the workforce;
• people who dropped their coverage while recuperating from a serious illness or injury that kept them off the road
• Californians who previously used mass-transit; and
• the long-term unemployed.

Californians who had chosen not to drive for a time and did not need insurance would be surcharged when a new job, move or some other circumstance requires them to buy insurance again. Prop 33’s unfair penalty would punish drivers with premium surcharges that could reach $1,000 a year or more just because they took a hiatus from driving their automobile.

For more information about Prop 33, Consumer Watchdog Campaign has created: www.StopTheSurcharge.org

– 30 –