Two former interns for Bell Mobility have filed complaints with Canada’s labor department alleging the company exploited an internship program to acquire the ultimate in cheap labor.

Jainna Patel, 24, spent five weeks at the wireless phone company’s intern campus in Missassauga, Ont. She was enrolled in Bell’s Professional Management Program (PMP), intended to expose workers to the fast-paced telecommunications industry. Patel expected to work with advanced wireless telecom technology and get an introduction to the industry over the course of the three or four-month program. Instead, she and other workers allege they were exposed to 12 hour days doing unpaid entry-level work including phone surveys and basic market research that directly benefited Bell and likely violated Canadian labor laws.

“It felt like I was sitting in an office as an employee, doing regular work. It didn’t feel like a sort of training program,” Patel told CBC News. “They just squeezed out of you every hour they could get and never showed any intent of paying.”

Bell’s PMP invites nearly 300 post-secondary graduates each year to work in the special facility, segregated from regular Bell employees.

Interns are allegedly pressured to work long hours and late, sometimes until 3am, and some left afraid to ask too many questions or complain.

Patel

One intern interviewed by the CBC said he lasted two months in the program and felt taken advantage of performing tedious market research that helped the company place cell towers and advertising billboards. He added he was chastised if he arrived late or complained about overtime hours.

He noted many interns had few opportunities in the jobs market, including at Bell, and many eventually returned to living at home, unemployed.

“I didn’t learn anything,” he said. “I learned not to trust corporations. I learned how life works. Anything I learned professionally was from the other interns.”

Toronto lawyer Andrew Langille, who specializes in internships and labor law, estimates the majority of the 300,000 unpaid interns working in Canada are performing work that directly benefits their host companies in violation of Canadian labor laws.

“Employers decided to use the poor economic conditions and the poor labor market as a carte blanche to begin replacing paid employees with unpaid ones,” Langille claims, noting he hears more complaints about Bell’s internship program than any other program in Canada.

“If you are out of school and you are just providing free work for an employer, then it is typically illegal,” said Langille.

But provincial laws often differ from federal law, opening up loopholes that some companies use to flout labor laws.

Bell’s Creekbank Campus in Ontario.

In Ontario, provincial regulated employers, which do not include Bell, must provide training that benefits the intern without reaping any benefit from the work the intern does. Bell, which is federally regulated, is covered by Canada’s looser Labour Code, which avoids spelling out specific rules governing internships. Case law and past precedent have provided some general guidance that employers should follow, including the fact almost all work should be compensated, but it remains less clear-cut.

Patel’s complaint asks Bell to compensate her almost $2,500 in unpaid wages for her work.

Patel also explained she felt intense pressure from Bell managers to stay quiet and not file any complaints against the program, which at least one manager suggested could be at risk if the government intervened. Patel was told that could result in hundreds of interns being sent home.

Langille was unmoved.

“Is it permissible that a company that makes billions of dollars each year in profits is not paying the minimum wage? It’s ridiculous. A lot of the companies that are using unpaid labor have the ability to pay but choose not to — to save money,” Langille said.

Patel is now back at home worried she will get blacklisted by the industry for being a troublemaker.

[flv width=”480″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CBC BC Bell accused of breaking labour law with unpaid interns 6-24-13.flv[/flv]

Jainna Patel talks with the CBC about her experience as an unpaid intern for Bell Mobility, Bell Canada’s wireless division. (3 minutes)

Time Warner Cable’s decision to spend $11 billion to broadcast Los Angeles Lakers and Dodgers games at an estimated cost of $50-60 a year per subscriber is the subject of a class action lawsuit from fed up customers.

The plaintiffs are upset cable subscribers across Southern California will have to cover the cost of the 20-year deal with no option to opt-out of the sports channels because they are bundled into the most popular cable package.

The suit, filed this week in Superior Court alleges at least 60 percent of subscribers have no interest in the sports programming, but will collectively cover $6.6 billion of the deal and never watch a single game.

Time Warner Cable is also accused of forcing AT&T U-verse, Charter Cable, Cox Cable, DirecTV and Verizon FiOS to sign restrictive contracts that compel the companies to include the sports channels on the basic lineup.

Ironically, Time Warner Cable itself regularly complains about the increasing cost of programming and contract terms that force it to bundle expensive sports channels inside the basic tier instead of offering customers optional, added-cost sports programming packages.

Both sports teams are also named as defendants in the suit because they were aware that all subscribers would face rate increases as a result of the deal.

“TWC’s bundling results in Defendants making huge profits, much of which is extracted from unwilling consumers who have no opportunity to delete unwanted telecasts,” the complaint states.

The suit claims there is no legitimate reason Time Warner Cable and the sports teams could not have offered the new networks only to customers that wished to pay for them. The suit wants the bundling of the sports networks stopped and customers given refunds for the higher television bills that resulted.

With promotions from Time Warner Cable no longer being what they used to be, customers are struggling to get as much savings as possible from discount pricing and a $200 gift card offer available to those switching from a competing provider.

But expecting a $200 debit card and actually getting it are two different things, as some customers are learning.

Stop the Cap! regularly gets reader complaints from customers who signed up for Time Warner Cable promotions but are rejected for the rebate, primarily because they did not follow all the rules or waited too long.

Typically, Time Warner’s complicated rebates are only available to customers switching from another provider. New customers who don’t have active, equivalent service with another company do not qualify. If you don’t have cable television and watch shows online from Netflix or only have a cell phone for telephone service, you won’t qualify.

Other important rules:

• Customers have to stay with Time Warner for 90 days after installation with no past due balances to qualify to apply for the rebate;
• You must register your rebate on a special website within 30 days of installation;
• You must also upload a copy of the bill from your previous service provider issued within the last 90 days showing the service(s) you are cancelling.  Customer’s name and/or address on previous provider’s bill must match name and/or address on Time Warner Cable installation order;
• You will need a “redemption code” found on a postcard and/or email sent to you after installation that includes your rebate registration instructions to apply for the rebate.

With requirements like that, customers can easily be tripped up along the way and get rejected for the rebate.

We recommend customers create a folder to keep Time Warner Cable documentation in one easy-to-remember place. If you can’t find a rebate redemption code, don’t search the house. Call Time Warner Cable at 1-888-892-2253 and request one over the phone.

We also suggest you use a calendar to make note of deadlines and track your rebate so you don’t forget. Some people only discover they were rejected when they called to ask about a missing rebate card.

The biggest obstacle is usually finding and uploading a final bill showing services disconnected with the other provider. By the time some providers send your last bill, the rebate may have slipped your mind or the submission deadline has passed.

If your rebate request was denied and you made a good faith effort to follow the rules, don’t give up and say goodbye to $200.

1. Start by calling Time Warner Cable and complaining.
2. If your documentation was sent and the company claims it was not received, ask them to accept a copy.
3. If you are still rejected or if the company points you to the rebate processor who points you back to the company, file a complaint with the Better Business Bureau against the Time Warner Cable division nearest you. In reviewing several cases about rebate eligibility, it is clear Time Warner usually settles these complaints by applying a credit for the rebate card amount to your Time Warner Cable bill.

If and when your rebate card does arrive, it comes with a booklet of terms and conditions as well. Our best advice is to spend the money quickly, because after six months, the issuing bank starts deducting service fees. If you lose the card, it will cost just under $6 to get a new one.

Some suggested uses include buying gift cards with fewer restrictions (Amazon.com is a common choice) if you are worried you won’t use the card fast enough.

One of the best local places to quickly use rebate cards are in supermarkets. Keep track of your balance and when just a few dollars are left, ask the cashier to process it for the exact amount of the remaining funds on the card. The cashier can then accept another credit card, cash or a check for any remaining balance due. Do not use your reward card at a gas station, rental car company, hotel, restaurant or for bill payments. These establishments often place a temporary hold on  card funds in excess of the transaction amount or first process a test authorization on the card for a few dollars to make sure the card is valid and has adequate funds available. It can take several days before holds on those funds are released.

A California federal judge has rejected a class action case against Comcast for allegedly hiding modem fees as high as $15 a month when signing up new customers.

In 2010, Athanassios Diacakis made several calls to Comcast inquiring about cable service as a new customer. Diacakis claims several Comcast representatives offered a bundle of broadband, television and phone service for $99 a month. When he asked Comcast about any other charges, company representatives eventually admitted there was a $25 installation fee, but never mentioned any modem rental fees.

After Comcast installed service, Diacakis began receiving Comcast bills that included a previously undisclosed monthly modem fee of $10 and an extra “lease charge” of $5 a month associated with his broadband service.

Diacakis alleged in his complaint charging $15 a month for cable modem equipment was “outside and in excess of the specifically quoted bundled service” package he ordered.

As Below Your Means points out, renting a cable modem may be harmful to your wallet.

The plaintiff sought class certification to force Comcast to refund some or all the modem fees charged customers from 2007 to the present. His first effort failed in January 2012 on grounds of insufficient evidence. His amended complaint was rejected May 3 on similar grounds.

United States District Judge Saundra Armstrong ruled Diacakis failed on two separate occasions to produce convincing proof Comcast was actively deceiving customers with undisclosed modem fees.

Judge Armstrong wrote that Diacakis should have come to court with evidence beyond the spoken promises of a handful of Comcast salespeople the plaintiff identified only by their first names. She was swayed by Comcast’s arguments:

As Comcast correctly points out, the only evidence offered by Plaintiff regarding Comcast’s alleged practices consists of his limited personal experience in speaking with “Heather,” “Steve” and another unidentified Comcast representative in August 2010. There is no evidence that Comcast has employed any policy, custom or practice of intentionally failing to inform potential Triple Play subscribers that they will be subject to separate modem fees. To the contrary, the record presented thus far shows that Comcast trains and instructs its employees to inform customers and potential customers about all applicable charges, including those for leased equipment.

[…] As noted, he has made no showing that the representations or omissions during those calls were made pursuant to a standardized script or marketing practice. Indeed, there is no evidence that anyone other than Plaintiff was allegedly misinformed about the modem fees.

Armstrong also faulted Diacakis for not independently locating, scrutinizing, and verifying Comcast’s print or television advertising before he filed a lawsuit seeking to represent every customer paying them:

Comcast argues that Plaintiff is not an adequate representative because there is no evidence that he or anyone else was misled by its marketing and advertisements for the Triple Play package. Plaintiff does not dispute that he lacks such evidence. In addition, Plaintiff admitted during his deposition that he did not review any advertisements before contacting Comcast in August 2010 about bundling his services. Since Plaintiff could not have been harmed by any allegedly misleading advertising, he cannot adequately represent a class member who claims to have been harmed by Comcast’s alleged marketing program.

Six months after Hurricane Sandy struck the northeastern United States, a significant number of Verizon customers are now learning they will never get their landline service back.

Mantoloking is the first town in New Jersey — but not the last — that will no longer be able to get landline service from the telephone company.

In its place, Verizon offers Voice Link, a home phone replacement that works exclusively over the Verizon Wireless network.

About 30 customers have signed up for the service after being without a home phone for a half a year.

The device looks like a wireless router, with an antenna and several jacks on the back to deliver service over your home’s existing telephone wiring. Instead of connecting with Verizon’s wired network, the unit receives a signal from the nearest Verizon Wireless cell tower to make and receive telephone calls.

Verizon is enticing customers to use this device instead of repairing its damaged network by promising free installation, unlimited nationwide calling and support for 911 and basic phone features like Caller ID and voice mail. For now, the service will not cost any more than a wired landline phone.

For Verizon’s bean counters, Voice Link is an inexpensive alternative to replacing copper wiring with FiOS fiber optic service. Verizon previously announced that maintenance on its aging copper wire network was becoming increasingly expensive.

“It acts just like a regular phone,” Tom Maguire, Verizon’s senior vice president of national operations told the Asbury Park Press. “There’s a dial tone. It has 911 capability, so if you dial 911 the emergency services guys are going to know exactly where you are.”

But members of Verizon’s unions who have had hands-on experience testing Voice Link suggest it isn’t everything Verizon says it is. The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers’ Local 824 points out Voice Link was not intended to serve just anybody. It will deliver a voice-only service unsuitable for faxing, DSL, or data communications of any kind.

Mantoloking is located on New Jersey’s barrier island.

Stop the Cap! has also heard from Verizon customers directly affected by the forced migration to wireless, and many are unhappy about it.

“This is the death knell for wired broadband in areas bypassed by cable along coastal New Jersey,” shares Dale Smith. “We lost our Verizon landline and DSL service during Sandy and have had nothing but a cell phone for the last six months because Verizon has dragged its feet.”

Smith says a Verizon manager told him the company was “evaluating certain service areas” for an “exciting new wireless product” instead of repairing or replacing the company’s wired network.

“While they were ‘evaluating,’ we were getting no dial tone and huge cell bills from Verizon — good for them, but not for us.”

Smith had a chance to view Voice Link in action and thinks it represents a Verizon wolf in sheep’s clothing.

“It sounds remarkably better than a cell phone, which tells you something about how much effort manufacturers of smartphones spend on voice calling, but that is where the good ends and the problems begin,” Smith said. “The most annoying is no caller ID with name and fairly frequent call delays and failed calls.”

Smith says the Caller ID displays the caller’s number, but not name – a feature he relied on heavily. He found about 30 percent of test calls either took more than 10 seconds to start ringing, or never rang at all.

“Sometimes the calls would time out and other times you would just sit and listen in silence until the phone at the other end finally started ringing,” Smith said.

He also worries about call reliability.

“What happens if you are in a marginal signal area or the cell tower gets overcongested and starts dropping calls, or the power goes out at the cell tower? You can’t use your cell phone either in that case.”

Anne contacted us after complaining to the Federal Communications Commission that Verizon is dumping its reliable landline network for unreliable wireless, and is frustrated the FCC does not seem to understand what is going on in New York and New Jersey.

“The response from the FCC doesn’t even bother to recognize that Verizon isn’t going to fiber service from copper, but is relying on very unreliable wireless,” Anne tells Stop the Cap! “For a vulnerable area such as the barrier island, wireless will likely be useless during a disaster/big emergency, especially where electricity goes out.”

The FCC’s short response to Anne’s detailed complaint:

If Verizon wishes to replace the copper wiring with fiber it is strictly their business desicion (sic).  — Representative Number : TSR54

“I can’t believe this email is a product of the United States government,” Anne told us. “Why does the FCC exist at all?  It is a complete waste of taxpayer money.”

In addition to filing a complaint with the FCC, Anne has tried to help her elderly mother get her home phone back on the barrier island that was damaged by Hurricane Sandy. As of a week ago, every utility, except Verizon phone service, has been restored.

“Trying to get a straight story from Verizon has been impossible,” Anne said. “What a nightmare.”

The landline network is dead.

Jim Mudd also takes care of his parents who are headed back to the New Jersey coast in an area that still lacks Verizon phone service after Sandy washed away utility infrastructure. New poles have been placed and the power is back, but Verizon is nowhere to be found.

“Our local town officials tell us Verizon was hinting we might end up with Voice Link as well, although nothing formal has been announced,” Mudd writes. “This would be a major problem for us, because Voice Link will not work with our home alarm system or my parents’ medical monitoring service.”

Mudd says Verizon confirmed to him that data services of any kind, including faxing or credit card processing is not possible with the first version of the service, although Verizon said it was exploring better options in the future.

“After waiting a half a year for Verizon to restore my home phone, I hope they pardon me for not waiting around for them,” Mudd said. “We signed up with Comcast the moment they got service back, but they know they have a working monopoly here now, especially with Verizon signaling it wants to pull out of anything that is not wireless.”

“What annoys me is Verizon wanted rate increases back in the 1990s and on to pay for upgrading their network and replace it with fiber,” Mudd adds. “We paid those surcharges or higher rates like everyone else and we are going to get nothing to show for it. Don’t replace the copper, but don’t abandon us with wireless either. We paid for something better: fiber.”

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Asbury Press Following-Sandy-destruction-Verizon-switches-all-wireless-service 5-2-13.flv[/flv]

Verizon’s Tom Maguire demonstrates the company’s Voice Link landline replacement, courtesy of the Asbury Park Press.  (1 minute)