Sunday, November 29, 2015

Who Needs Repeat Customers Anyway?

Article: 5 Key Ways to Build Customer Relationships

Let's start today's blog with a visit to the Complaints page

Right from the start - and until present day, TSDC's customers have had a story that goes like this: 

"I was very disappointed with the organization and services of the company."

"What a disaster!"

" SLEAZE factor"

"Utter lack of professionalism."

"Service? Nope, they are possibly the worst vendor possible. Once they close the sale, they forget your name." "Never buy if you think you might need service or support."

"Overall, Sliding Door was difficult to deal with after the sale. In the end we used only 2 doors and we would not order from them again. I reluctantly gave one star rating because there is nothing lower."

"I will NOT be recommending the services of this company, furthermore, I discourage ANYONE from doing any business with these people."

Bottom line for most (former) customers:
"wouldn't recommend"
"I don't think I would choose this product if I had to do it over again."
"Buyer Beware"
"Avoid"

"If you are a minority go elsewhere and boycott the store."

"avoid dealing with this company" "I highly suggest you shop elsewhere."

OUCH - That's gotta hurt - right?  So... What does The Sliding Door Company offer their customers - especially in the way of Customer Service?  First, let's see what their own comments and apologia say about how they view their customers:
"I want to point out that none of the comments above have any history, so that doesn't necessarily mean that it is not a true post."  
"We do acknowledge that both customers as well as a number of others did not have a good experience with us in that time period.  Our customer satisfaction is high, and our sales process is smooth and efficient."  
"We are sorry you didn't have a pleasant experience and respect your decision of posting your experience.  However, The Sliding Door Company in California is a completely different company. We do not share the same management nor do we share the same employees. ... We would greatly appreciate if you would remove this posting and share your experience on their respective Yelp page as we have undergone personnel changes and implemented new policies to ensure an excellent customer service experience for each of our clients."  
"The above information regarding pricing is absolutely false."  
"This review is nothing short of a lie" 
"It is never our intention to hurt anyone. (but) ... We support our team, and we appreciate and stand behind the great work they do."
"There are always two sides to every story.  In this case all the complaints are related to the installation" ... "We are very happy that Donna loves the doors and her suggestion to find another company is an overstatement."
"Our Customer Service Department is typically very responsive and helpful and this feedback is critical for us to train our personnel. We are extremely glad that you brought this to our attention. "

These, of course, are not isolated comments and they demonstrate the attitude of The Sliding Door Company's management toward their customers - an attitude that suggests customers can't possibly be right!  Starting there, it seems The Sliding Door Company feels it provides excellent service to customers.  After all, there are some 5-Star reviews on Yelp - so it must be true, right?  

Again, these critical comments and many more like them are available on the Complaints page.  So, what kind of business model can still work when customers aren't happy after the sale?

Literally every on-line article about businesses and their customers suggests that businesses should work hard to keep existing customers.  The Sliding Door Company has been built on a very simple business model that doesn't follow this advice.  They sell and run - that is... they treat each sale as if the customer purchased the item on sale.  No refunds, no returns, no service... all sales are final... don't let the non-ADA swing door hit you on your way out.  And, since they started with residential closet doors, they didn't really count on repeat business as much as new clients.  So who needs repeat customers anyway?

Customer service isn't even a real department at The Sliding Door Company.  At the time I left, Customer Service was going to be either handled by "someone" in the Sales department or by the Operations department.  They couldn't decide which.  To assign a "manager" to Customer Service seemed like overkill to them.  

And let's face it... to TSDC, customer service just means having someone available to convince customers they must live with gaps in the doors, or blemishes on the tracks or glass that won't clean... at least until their warranty expires.

And so, they open new showrooms, and hope nobody will read (and believe) the reviews.  And of course, they have Regus as their top commercial customer who keeps them busy enough.  So who needs repeat customers?  Not The Sliding Door Company - That's for sure!   


Sunday, November 22, 2015

Sliding Door Company - an Open and Shut Case

You may have noticed that The Sliding Door Company is operating illegally and fraudulently - not just toward their customers but toward their employees.  Surely, they must have some superior legal representation to ensure they don't end up in court.  And they do...

We will meet Susan Bendavid at Lewitt Hackman in a future blog.  Her job is to frighten employees and their contingency lawyers away from The Sliding Door Company.  And she's good at it!  OK, not so much with me, but I'm sure with others.  


But then, Lewitt Hackman know all about people like me too.  Here's a link to an article on their website that was posted only LAST WEEK (Makes me wonder...)
called Online Negativity: How to Fight Back.  Quoting from the article: 

But the despair over negative online content is partly misplaced. While the internet benefits from principles of free speech, First Amendment protection has limits. Increasingly, victims, lawyers and other consultants discover creative ways to fight back against improper negative online speech. This article discusses several strategies.
So, to be clear here - the purpose of this article is to explain how it is possible to limit someone's First Amendment rights through "several strategies". 
Review and Rating WebsitesAt sites like Angie's List, Avvo, Yelp, and TripAdvisor, satisfied or dissatisfied customers, or students in the case of the professor/teacher ratings sites, can post compliments, but can also post rants, criticisms or even false information.
Yes, and the reader depends on the honesty and integrity of the reviewer - just like they depend on the honesty and integrity of the person they purchased their product or service from.  When someone is dishonest on the internet, it tends to show up loud and clear!  The complaints gathered from Yelp reviews are REPEATED by multiple complainants.  That means reviewers have conspired to produce the same story of problems on multiple web pages or somebody at The Sliding Door Company isn't being honest.
Revenge WebsitesThese sites invite submissions, purported facts, embarrassing photos or other content as a way to obtain vengeance for perceived wrongs done against them by ex-friends, ex-lovers, employers, co-workers, neighbors, or others.
In other words, websites that allow comments are "inviting submissions".  After dispensing bullying and humiliation to others for years, maybe TSDC should expect to be "embarrassed" by their activities.
Social Media. Social platforms allow negative comments like Facebook posts, You Tube comments, Tweets or Reddit posts, all with potential to go viral quickly.
Yes, this is true.  Is the point that there are LOTS of ways to expose companies that are doing harm?  Or that companies who harm customers and employees need the legal wisdom of Lewitt Hackman?
Information Hacks. Private content, such as internal emails and memos from within Sony, or subscriber identities from the Ashley Madison website, for example, can be exposed.
OK, I have to admit, I haven't checked Ashley Madison to see if I can dig up any dirt... yet.  I will certainly expose internal emails and memos from within The Sliding Door Company - showing fraudulent activities.  It's kinda what whistleblowers do.
Personal Sites. False or defamatory statements are easily made on blogs or other sites. 
Yes, but as I mentioned, lying is not so easy to do on the internet.  Eventually the truth comes out.  My blog is open for comments - in case I misrepresented anything.  And seriously, nobody needs to lie about anything with The Sliding Door Company, the TRUTH provides plenty to work with.
ChallengetFighting Back
Check out the example they give - about a lawyer who couldn't prove defamation (LMAO).
Free speech has also been used to protect anonymous online posters. For example, Thomson v. Doeconcerned an anonymous review on a site that posts reviews and ratings of lawyers. The lawyer was accused of lacking basic business skills, detachment from fiduciary duties, professional failures, and not protecting a client. The lawyer subpoenaed the website (Avvo) seeking the poster's identity. The Washington State Court of Appeals relied on the First Amendment to rule that because the lawyer did not make a prima facie evidentiary showing of defamation, the subpoena would not be enforced.
Well, I'm not anonymous.  And if defamation can be proven (making false statements) why haven't the experts at Lewitt Hackman proven I have defamed someone at The Sliding Door Company?  My ONLY defense is that I am NOT making false statements. 

Get it? This blog has to be TRUTHFUL in order to exist!

Practical Strategies and Legal Tools for Fighting Back
OK, now we're getting to the nitty gritty... What's the recommended strategy for The Sliding Door Company?
Proactive Conduct. While self-evident, one way for businesses and individuals to reduce the incidence of negative comments is to use care in their activities and operations, acting properly, trying to avoid giving offense, delivering quality products and services at fair prices, being attentive to customers, apologizing promptly and sincerely for mistakes, and being kind and nice.
With ALL due respect to the experts at  Lewitt Hackman... DUH!  Doing the right thing is what this blog is about.  You call it "Proactive Conduct"... I call it "Stop FUCKING OVER YOUR CUSTOMERS AND EMPLOYEES".  But I suppose this is a case of semantics.  We know TSDC isn't about to change their style... so what other suggestions do you have?
Take No Action. (this one suits TSDC better) Sometimes taking no action is the best action. No one wants a negative email or tweet, or negative online review on Yelp, RipOff Report or elsewhere about themselves. But a response that disputes the review, or criticizes the person who posted it, may have an effect that is opposite what is desired. That response may draw more attention to the message. Instead, silence may avoid drawing attention, so that the message soon becomes obscured by hopefully more favorable messages.
One way to avoid RipOff reports is to stop ripping your customers off.  And yes, we saw what happened when Betty and Sheryl tried to answer Yelp reviews. Taking no action has served The Sliding Door Company for quite some time.  Silence avoids drawing attention to their problems... The Sliding Door Complaint Blog will correct this so this won't be a solution for them.  So far, no help from the experts in this article... let's see what else they offer...
Business Terms and Conditions. In some business relationships it may be appropriate to include in the company’s standard website terms and conditions or in service agreements, a clause in which customers agree not to post negative online statements or not to make any post, without first getting the company’s written consent.
TSDC already has a "Terms of Use" statement at the bottom of their website page that does this.  The many Yelp reviewers and other complainants are REQUIRED to be truthful per the website page.  So, when you see a negative review, you can pretty much count on it being honest - assuming the reviewer visited TSDC's website and agreed to the "Terms of Use".  <rolling my eyes here>
Check Sites Terms of Use and Procedures. Most websites that accept posts from the public and most social media have terms of use that are accessible from their home page and other pages. Often these terms include a procedure for responding to negative or other inappropriate content.
Yes, good luck with that!  As a rule of thumb, if you're going to post a review, it's best not to link to anything.  If you need to reference this site, The Sliding Door Complaint Blog is very searchable - just mention us by name.
Ask Poster to Remove or Modify. Other possibilities include communicating with the poster directly or offering some restitution or discount in the future. Where someone posted a negative online review they can be asked politely to remove or edit it. Sometimes a polite response setting forth an explanation of what happened is helpful.
At The Sliding Door Company, you can occasionally parlay removing a bad Yelp review into getting the ACTUAL SERVICE you paid for!  My office was next to the sales manager's and I heard this happen time and time again.
Post a Polite Response. On many sites, bulletin boards and forums it is possible to post a response. A brief, respectful, even-tempered response explaining the circumstance, expressing regret for what happened, or for the poster’s experience, and if appropriate, mentioning corrective action that was or will be taken, can partially neutralize some ill effects of a negative post. It does this by providing an alternative view to those who read the post.
Oh, if only this was possible for the people at TSDC.  Instead, they come on-line calling their customers liars.  That there is "two sides to every story" is what they hope unsuspecting prospective customers to believe.  Sadly, there is only one side to this story - and sugar-coating the horrible customer service they provide isn't good business.  Improving their products and services is their only hope, and again, they have no intention nor desire to do this.
Cease and Desist Demand. The next level of escalation is a formal demand that the poster “cease and desist” from their presumably unlawful conduct. 
And this brings us back to Susan Bendavid - whose Cease and Desist Demand to me launched this blog.  I will be posting Susan's letter with her extraordinary presumptions and threats in a future blog.  I have written her to let her know, BTW, and even the article suggests: 
Letters with a more aggressive tone are also possible. However, as with everything else, cease and desist letters should be drafted with care, as it is fairly usual for recipients of these letters to post these on line as well.
Guilty!  I suspect Lewitt Hackman will certainly line their pockets by dispensing this type of bad advice to clients.  In this case, I'm pretty sure nobody will doubt that trying to bully someone like me (an already internationally known whistleblower) was not too smart - from a business sense (I mean, for TSDC's business - Lewitt Hackman will benefit, certainly).
Get Other Posts. An effective countermeasure to negative posts is to enlist other customers, friends and associates to post their own comments or reviews. This method may have the effect of causing negative reviews to be pushed down in the feed that contains such information.
This is borderline unethical... so count on TSDC to do it.  In fact they do.  We saw Sheryl Hai-Ami do exactly this on Yelp.  We saw an employee response on Indeed as well.  Yelp even realizes this happens and removes these one-shot bliss-ninny reviews to the "not recommended" page.  I have other examples too.
DMCA Takedown Notice. The DMCA includes a procedure for notifying internet websites of content that infringes a copyright and requiring them to remove that content. Under the notice and takedown procedure, a copyright owner submits a notification, including a list of specified elements, to the service provider’s designated agent. 
OK, now we're getting somewhere... and the irony would be fantastic!  That the company which has clearly stolen the intellectual property of Simpson, Adams Rite and others could make a "copyright" claim to make sure their crimes don't see the light of day makes me want to giggle.  Let's move on...
Complain to and Enlist Assistance of Government. A course of action that is inexpensive is to seek assistance of government officials and agencies. 
Yes, PLEASE, let's get more government agencies involved.  I have saved us some trouble.  I have contacted OSHA, the DLSE, and the ACLU.  I have the Department of Justice on speed-dial.  I will be contacting the State Attorney General's office soon.  I can't wait!  Seriously, let's do this!
The Federal Trade Commission, U.S. Attorney General, state consumer protection agency, state attorney general, local consumer protection agencies, U.S. senators, U.S. representatives, state senators and state assembly members, and county and city officials are all possible sources of assistance.
Great advice, except that these options are for people who are on the right side of the law.  For example - Consumer protection agencies tend to protect consumers, not the people who are committing crimes and fraud against them.  The Sliding Door Company can't benefit from this advice.  Besides, the rest of this article seems to be providing advice for people who want to work on the edges of the law - sneaking around behind the scenes and complaining about posts to prevent legitimate complaints from surfacing.  That's more their style.  Companies should go with their strengths.
Litigation. Because of costs, time commitments and unpleasantness, litigation is rarely a first or preferred course of action. Rather, it is typically a course of last resort if the others have failed, or if assessment indicates the others are not likely to succeed. 
This is TSDC's best and only hope.  Let's go to court!  Let a judge and jury decide who is being honest and who is lying for personal gain.  I'm not doing this anonymously... you don't have to find me.  I'm right here and I stand behind every single word I have said!       
Pay the Ransom. Some sites claim that signing up for their paid services have no affect on the placement of comments, but widespread anecdotal evidence disputes that. So while not first or desirable on anyone’s list, another choice is to sign up for the services the site offers. Some business owners complain the fee is akin to a shakedown charge offered by organized crime or others for so-called “protection,” but it may be a less costly choice to avoid further damage to the reputation of an individual or business.
Yeah, we're not doing that here.  This was Susan Bendavid's accusation - that by asking for my severance package after being illegally terminated, I was attempting to extort money from TSDC.  This type of sick thinking by bottom-feeding lawyers who spend time thinking up ways that the First Amendment can be violated is exactly why this blog is here.  

This isn't about a "ransom" or "protection" money.  Nobody is going after an innocent business that simply made a mistake.  This is a company that for YEARS has defrauded customers - and harmed employees and is now being exposed for it.

So, no... don't "pay the ransom"... Nobody wants your "protection" money.  TRUTH is all that matters here.
Use Online Reputation Service. Online services claim they can help remove negative online postings. Examples include ReputationDefender and Integrity Defenders.
Wow... I'm learning something here.  I didn't know these even existed.  Well, they won't be touching this blog in any case.  So what readers can take from this is that TSDC may be using services like these ALREADY to ensure negative comments don't show up on Yelp and other sites.  Good thing this blog is here!

Thanks to Lewitt Hackman for this wonderful and very timely information.  I don't agree with the word "Negativity" in the title... it's only "negative" for the Company that is producing the complaints.  It's very "POSITIVE" for consumers to have this information!  

Considering the timing of the article, I kinda feel like it was written because of this very blog.  I can't wait to see which of these many options they intend to try first.

***
BTW, here's a link to one of my other whistleblowing blogs.  I guess I'm supposed to be afraid of Senators (per the article above).  In this case, Senator Mitch McConnell's daughter abused children.  I blog or post about this on-line every year or so.  I'm still here... my blog is still here - even the newspaper article is still on-line. Why? 

Because the truth doesn't bow to bullies.




















Thursday, November 19, 2015

My Letter to Human Resources (Updated)

It isn't as if anything on this blog is news to The Sliding Door Company.  After being demoted for filing a complaint, I filed my second letter of complaint below.  It details many of the problems I have already covered in this blog. 


My letter to Human Resources


To Kimberly Antillion, 
Human Resources 
The Sliding Door Company 
April 3, 2015 

Dear Kimberly, 

Thank you for working tirelessly to work with Doron to find a possible solution to my harassment and hostile work environment complaint against him and his wife Sheryl. I know it must be difficult when our boss is the perpetrator. Nobody has ever challenged Doron’s inappropriateness like I have, and this may be why he is so defiant of the law and so quick to find himself blameless as he punishes me. It may very well be that we need outside assistance in this matter. Possibly, the source that gave us our Harassment training could be contacted to facilitate a reasonable solution to this problem. 

Unfortunately, the solution I was presented with yesterday is unsatisfactory on many levels – not the least of which is that I was demoted for filing a harassment complaint against Doron and Sheryl. I’ll get to that in a minute. More importantly, however, is that I filed a complaint describing activity I believed was criminal by Sheryl – relating to drawing requests she was making - to which the solution was to remove me from the position where I could monitor her drawing requests. 

Nobody, apparently, investigated Sheryl’s activity. Why not? Why was that part of my complaint not taken seriously – or if it was, why wasn’t I made aware of the results? A simple phone call to the General Contractor would have confirmed what happened. Are we simply going to overlook a complaint of something criminal and punish the person who brought it to light? This punctuates exactly what is wrong with the environment here – and why the EEOC and now apparently additionally government agencies must be called in to investigate what is starting to look like a conspiracy to cover up a possible crime whether known to the perpetrators at the time or not. 

Would the General Contractor appreciate his name being invoked by a sales person to demand engineering changes without his permission? Does Doron believe he is permitted to hide his wife’s possibly criminal activities like this? And this isn’t the only example I have uncovered. At one time, we prepared engineering calculations on our products. I have pointed out to Sheryl that our engineering documents were obsolete as of 2012 yet she continues to make the claim that our products have engineering documentation to support them when she knows they don’t. The moment I told her the documents have expired, she needed to stop making that claim. 

Additionally, Doron has eliminated the engineered components (connectors) on which those calculations were based from our product line. We have absolutely no business making any engineering claims – but we continue to make them. That’s fraud – but Doron will certainly claim ignorance of any of this. This is going on behind the scenes with Sheryl.  I have tried to make engineering decisions to try to save our company from lawsuits.  I have had to fight Doron on many of them. 

Most significantly, our factory in China had copied (exactly) an engineered bracket made by Simpson Strong-tie.  Anyone who has bought screws from China realizes the materials there are not built to the same standards as materials here. In our own system, we have dozens of complaints about screws from China breaking. The brackets, while inferior are visibly identical to the engineered bracket except for the Simpson logo. This is the bracket that connects our system to the customer’s wall or connects our rails to our columns. There are seismic considerations and so forth. Doron insisted that we use the non-engineered knock-off bracket in our systems because it was 15 cents cheaper than the Simpson bracket. Customers can easily be fooled. While he claims now to have gone along with this change (to me) so far, not a single Simpson bracket has arrived at our warehouse – (we can purchase them from Home Depot). The knock-off brackets have not been destroyed and are indeed being used as if they are Simpson brackets. No engineering was done on our knock-off bracket. We are simply fooling our customers while stealing a patented design from someone else and producing it with cheap materials – so Doron can make an extra 15 cents per bracket. I’ve demanded we stop this – yet it continues. Jonathan Salem, our associate, did the right thing and immediately began using the engineered ties from Simpson.  Doron’s actions are shameful and possibly criminal. Somebody will be hurt eventually due to Doron’s negligence in this matter. 

And speaking of stealing designs… all we do is steal designs from other companies. Our barn door hangers, for example are ripped off from a company in Germany. When I tried to eliminate an element I believed was unsafe, I was referred to the German company’s design – suggesting they must know better. The element was a set-screw that we are replicating, again, from inferior materials. The notion that we had copied their design exactly – or that the product might be unsafe didn’t seem to bother anyone but me. 

The moment I arrived here – while still in training class, I noticed our “ADA” ramps are not ADA compatible. I was told by Doron not to fuss about them. Today we are selling them as ADA compatible when they are not. That’s fraud! I am a published illustrator in the ADA world – IBC, CBC. My peers expect better of me.  Am I supposed to pretend our non-ADA ramps are ADA compatible – or am I supposed to pretend I don’t know what I’m doing? This hurts me professionally! 

Our generic drawings make claims for patents we don’t hold – in big bold letters. 
Our “pending” patents have been in the patent office since 2006 – with no grant of patent. Are we being truthful? Additionally, the writing on the contract portion is far too small to be legally binding. That has been taken out of my control – so apparently we can continue to operate illegally. That we often provide “generic” drawings for systems that require engineering is criminal. I have discovered our sales people making changes to our engineered drawings after we have delivered them. Again, I’ve complained about this with no response. 

I don’t want to bore you – but I’m only getting started. If I am to stay on here, I have my work cut out for me. There are many more issues that border criminal activity here – not just the one that wasn’t even investigated despite my first complaint put it in writing. Doron is in denial of the problems facing his company.  Nonetheless, how does it look when Doron demotes the one person who has been trying to point out these problems? 

And let’s be clear here – this absolutely was a demotion intended to shut me up and to frighten co-workers who might consider filing a complaint against this company. My resume will no longer say “manager”. That represents a huge pay hit if I look for a job elsewhere – even if my pay hasn’t been cut here.  Let’s not try to put lipstick on this pig - it is a demotion that was done in retaliation to my complaint!
I was even moved out to the warehouse so that Sheryl wouldn’t have to look at me when she visits.  It’s obvious to people at the company what has happened and why.  It is a clear form of intimidation and bullying.  I expect Doron will eventually try to shift me to working under Bob Delia so that he can further distance himself from accountability – or at the very least, further encourage me to quit. 

Dozens of my coworkers have left recently because of the hostile work environment. There is a huge problem in the company with abusive, bullying people. I expect my remaining coworkers to be free to speak critically about this company during an investigation.  Having this obvious punishment of me WHILE there is a dispute will ensure they aren’t! Am I being told to keep quiet about these things in order to keep my job? Are my coworkers? Are you? Will my replacement be told he needs to keep quiet about criminal activity? Perhaps he won’t have to since I’m here as a living example of what happens to whistleblowers. 

I absolutely have to report this! Nobody is safe in a company where the law is considered bendable. So, I am hereby officially filing my second letter of complaint. My first complaint apparently wasn’t taken seriously enough. The solution that was arrived at is not just unacceptable, and I believe it has an underlying criminal aspect that requires review by the necessary government agencies. If Doron wants to try to make this right, he will have to give it another shot. He expressed that he doesn’t see anything “criminal” about yelling at me at the top of his lungs. Apparently, I can expect that from him in the future if that is the case. I think he needs to really understand how serious this issue is and how his actions have impacted me and my ability to do my job in a legal and ethical way. 

Screaming at the top of his lungs and then demoting a whistleblower was a very inappropriate reaction to emails you yourself characterized as not problematic.  I’m giving him one last chance to avoid further action by me. 

Here is what I am proposing MUST happen: 
1. I retain the title of R&D Manager so that no demotion is reflected on my resume or to other employees within the company. 
2. I remain in my current office because there is no reason to move and I need to interface with Natalie for product development and with Rachelle for commercial sales. Additionally, being moved to the warehouse gives the appearance of a demotion to other employees in the company. 
3. I retain Natalie to work with me and Andrea as was the case before. She is essential to me doing my job effectively. 
4. I continue to oversee the CAD department and drawing requests for safety purposes. The new hire CAD drafter will interface with sales people. 
5. I am treated with respect by Doron – not by some standard of what is barely legal.
6. We will agree that safety always comes first and to aggressively address engineering problems with our products and installations. I never want to have to beg for anyone’s permission to put safety over a sale. 
7. I will be given a long overdue substantial raise. Win-win was my request.


Kimberly Antillion, Manager of Human Resources, gave this letter directly to my harasser, Doron Polus - who answered me with "Hi Pete, In regards to your letter to Kimberly today, April 3, 2015, I totally disagree with all of the content that you outlined.".  (and BTW... Duh...)

Instead of doing the right thing and treating this with the seriousness it deserved, Ms Antillion shared my communication and then essentially conspired with Mr. Polus to assist him in his retaliatory demotion of me.  As if that wasn't bad enough, by doing this, she assisted Mr. Polus and his wife, Ms. Hai-Ami, in covering up all the safety issues I mentioned in the above letter.  Cool, huh?

Shortly after this letter, the CEO's son-in-law, Eyal Salpeter, planted spyware on my computer and then accused me of threatening him when I found out and removed the spyware.  At the same time, quite by coincidence I'm sure, Mr. Polus' wife, Sheryl Hai-Ami, filed a complaint against me.  Nothing conspiratorial going on here, right?

Next, Jorgensen HR "investigated" but couldn't substantiate any of the claims I made above (notice I've substantiated them just fine right here on this blog?).  You have to wonder what Linda Harris of Jorgensen investigated.  She reportedly had a copy of my letter.  Did her investigation end at asking Doron if he totally disagreed with all of the content I outlined?  She somehow came to the same mistaken conclusion Kimberly came to with her "investigation" that we already know was controlled by Doron.  Doron paid Jorgensen HR to investigate.  Nobody needs to be surprised at how the investigation went.


Anyway... the good news is, I've just heard from the DLSE and they're getting ready to assign an ACTUAL investigator to this case.  OSHA is aware of what is happening too - and they just got a boost in their ability to fine criminals.  

Needless to say, these people need to be made aware of what they have done and how it has impacted others.  And, again, mine isn't an isolated case.  Many hard-working employees have suffered at the hands of these monsters.

Anyone reading this blog and wishing to get on the right side of this issue and testify on my behalf, please contact me.

Saturday, November 14, 2015

Engineering Documents - NOT!

It certainly isn't the engineer's fault!  Given accurate engineering data, the engineer can determine what is safe and what is not.  But what happens when someone misrepresents information to the engineer?  Is it fraudulent to misrepresent information in order to get engineering "certificates"?  Of course it is!


Expired Engineering Certification
As of the time I left the The Sliding Door Company, their "engineering" documents had been expired for three years.  There was no interest in having an engineer re-visit the documents. With that said... 





Let's have a look at a few pages from TSDC's "engineering documents to see if the engineer received good data to work with. 




At the left we see what the engineer based his load calculations on. See the big red box with the words "HORIZONTAL LOAD"?  See the words the arrow is pointing to?  "6063-T5" is the type of aluminum these calculations are based on.  It has properties that are known/available to the engineer and those properties are what the engineer bases the load calculations on.  But hold on... We know that The Sliding Door Company doesn't use 6063-T5 aluminum.  They have a "proprietary formula" for their aluminum. So what do their "engineering" certifications mean?  Absolutely NOTHING!







The components to the right and below were used in TSDC's engineering calculations.  These are NOT the components they use in their installations (too expensive).  They use this one (35 cents) which they have copied from a Simpson design and for which they have no engineering test data.



The page below shows both components as well as the 6063-T5 aluminum beam on which The Sliding Door Company's expired engineering documents are based.  Additionally, they don't use or tell their installers to use the mechanical anchors that are called out here.  Literally nothing on this page of "engineering calculations" represents the actual Sliding Door Company product!



As usual, this raises another question of ethical behavior on the part of The Sliding Door Company.  They KNOW these documents are expired, and they also know they don't have anything valid to replace them.  They continue to suggest that they have valid engineering to support their product installations.  That simply isn't the case.


Thursday, November 12, 2015

Let's Check Out the Competition


You would think that with the way The Sliding Door Company treats their customers, they might have a monopoly on sliding closet doors.  Within the first week of working there, I decided to check out the "competition" by visiting Lowes.  I was surprised to find almost the EXACT frames used by The Sliding Door Company on Lowes closet doors.  Why would Lowes steal a design from The Sliding Door Company?  Readers of this blog may well wonder if it was the other way around.

Anyway, before buying from a company that has a very bad reputation for customer service, it wouldn't hurt to check out the competition.  Here's a peek at what's out there that is similar to The Sliding Door Company's products.  The prices are from the stores closest to their own corporate offices.  I may have missed a few sizes, but I think readers will get the idea.  There's no reason to suffer through The Sliding Door Company's rude sales people and non-existent customer service department.  Very reasonable (even better) solutions are available at trustworthy companies.  Below are some examples:

48x80 - $445.33 at Lowes
60x80 - $492.86 at Lowes
72x80 - $561.41 at Lowes
48x80 - $361.55 at Lowes
60x80 - $402.15 at Lowes




















48x80 - $338.34 at Lowes
60x80 - $382.55 at Lowes
72x80 - $446.30 at Lowes
In White also.
Similar doors with mirrors from
the same company are as low as $90.
48x80 - $418.13 at Lowes
60x80 - $465.66 at Lowes
72x80 - $534.20 at Lowes




How about some options from Home Depot?  Home Depot doors have received complaints, but keep in mind that they are for "do-it-yourself" types and often the complaints are less about the door quality and more about the installation evaluation of the do-it-yourselfer.  Having said this - as with any product, buyers should beware.

60x81 - $600.00 at Home Depot
Many sizes and options available.


84x81 - $879.00 at Home Depot
48x96 - $649.20 at Home Depot

There are literally too many options to list