How many of us have felt like we were in a bad, inescapable relationship with our cell phone company? So many times, I’ve sat on hold fuming, then labored to speak calmly and politely to the customer service representative who is just as blameless as the next guy for my whack, bootleg phone and its no-reception having, call-dropping, sorry-excuse-for-a-piece-of-technology self. How many of us have gotten our phone bill at the end of the month and thought, “But I work all day, how could this be correct?” And just when you think you’ve hit that boiling point and are ready to call it quits, it’s-not-you-it’s-me-style, the voice of wisdom tauntingly reminds you: “It’s cheaper to keep’er.”

Aaah!!!

There’s the early termination fees (ETFs); then there’s the fact that you might have to purchase a new phone to get new service; and then there’s the fact that switching to a new carrier is essentially a stab in the dark anyway. Who knows if the new company will provide better, worse, or equally bad service as who you’re with now? One thing that the whole industry has in common is the practice of imposing mandatory arbitration agreements (yes those lovely MBAs are back again). So, what’s the point of shopping around if there’s nothing to shop for, i.e., the right to be legally protected against a bad product?

Well, a California court made a good call for disgruntled customers, finding the arbitration agreement they had with T-Mobile to be unconscionable and unenforceable, and thus giving them the go-ahead for a class action lawsuit against the phone company.

Customers say that the company used unfair business practices in its rules surrounding early termination fees and its practice of cell phone locking. The early termination fees (ETFs) of up to $200 are applied at a flat rate (no pro-rating) and apply even to customers who have made numerous unsuccessful requests to correct problems with their service. The cell phone locking is a program in the hand set that prevents it from recognizing anything but T-Mobile Network SIM-cards, thus preventing the use of the phone with other service providers.

T-Mobile requested that the plaintiffs be forced to go to arbitration, in a motion to compel arbitration, but the trial court denied this request. The appeals court’s agreement with the lower court means that customers will now be able to take this case to a court of law as a group. The difference between the two options is often crucial, as we have seen that arbitration companies often strive to be “repeat-players” with the corporations who hire them, and so face lucrative incentives to find in favor of the company.

Here are one and two informative blogs that provide further detail on this lawsuit, and here is the court order, filed last Friday.

Things certainly could be better in the judiciary (did someone say Louisville/Seattle?) but at least some folks over in California will get to have their day in court.

People are still trying to figure out what led to the resignation of the chair of the CARB (California Air Resources Board) yesterday.  If you scan the article strictly for quotes from the governor’s office, their take is that Robert Sawyer was fired for dragging his feet on implementing air pollution and global warming initiatives.

In the statement, Schwarzenegger also criticized the board for approving a request by San Joaquin Valley air quality authorities to seek an 11-year extension of a federal deadline for complying with the Clean Air Act.

“I was deeply disappointed,” Schwarzenegger said. “The air board let the federal government off the hook by seeking delay.” […]

Schwarzenegger’s deputy chief of communications, Adam Mendelsohn, said the governor’s office did not think the air board or its staff were moving aggressively enough on air pollution and global warming.

“The issue really came to a head after the decision to ask for an extension in the San Joaquin Valley, and the lack of early action items that we wanted done … last week,” Mendelsohn said. He said the items Sawyer proposed were minor, while the governor’s office was seeking far tougher measures to control emissions from concrete factories and other sources […]

Mendelsohn said the administration first became upset with the agency when Witherspoon, without consulting the governor’s office, sent a letter to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency last spring seeking a long postponement of a federal deadline to clean up diesel soot.

“With the health threats of California air quality, this is a very high priority,” Mendelsohn said.

Well, OK.  And yet some environmentalists are defending Sawyer and saying things like “he deserved better.”  And then there’s this curious passage (on the fliip):

Sawyer … said he was called by a Cabinet secretary who ordered him to limit to three the number of so-called early action measures the board was considering to slow global warming.

So the governor was disappointed in Sawyer dragging his feet on global warming initiatives, yet he was called last week and told to… limit global warming initiatives?

Not sure what’s going on here, but you can be sure that it’s not as simple as Governor Schwarzenegger’s paid spinners are making it out to be.  Greg Lucas’ article for the SF Chronicle certainly makes it clearer:

Robert Sawyer, appointed by the governor in 2005, was one of three air board members who voted “no” last week when the board adopted three new policy changes to curb carbon dioxide and other emissions statewide. Sawyer, like several environmental groups, thought the board should have made more changes than those the governor sought.

That makes more sense, given what we know about Arnold’s “fight-global-warming-with-words-more-than-actions” approach.

Of the things you fight, you’d assume that money for children in foster care would be pretty low on your battle list.  But, the Assembly Senate Republicans fight to make sure not one more dime goes to those damn kids. I mean, they’ve got enough already, those dern foster care rich kids

Their uneasy coexistence with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger now at the lowest point in his tenure, Republican state lawmakers are rebelling in increasingly public ways over administration efforts both big and small.

GOP state senators refused Thursday to sign off on the administration’s request to pay for cost overruns in the state’s foster care system. Republican objections to Schwarzenegger’s proposed budget for the coming fiscal year all but guarantee that the state will miss its Saturday deadline for putting a new spending plan in place.[(LA Times 6/29/07) ]

Oh, you mean foster kids aren’t rich? Oh…right.  So, the GOP finally realizes that  Arnold has sold them out, or well, at least he wasn’t who they expected him to be.  Welcome to the club Mr. Villines Ackerman, I think Bill Lockyer is waiting for you at Table 2.