Tuesday, March 21, 2017

Admission of Guilt?

Seal Failure is a common problem for window manufacturers.

Leaks about Leaks!

We have a new email leak that is an apparent admission of guilt... or at least knowledge of an issue described in a previous blog post as "seal failure" and described below as a "leaking gasket" issue.  

TSDC has known about this product flaw and its causes for a long time and it has plagued them and their factory (not to mention their customers) - especially because it seems intermittent (I explain why in the previous blog post - but don't tell them).   

Our complaints page is filled with people who have experienced fogging and leaking issues with TSDC's glass products and have been told to try special "glass cleaner" until their warranty expires.  Clearly, this is a product flaw.  Why doesn't The Sliding Door Company address it?


The CEO Steps In

The email below is from Doron Polus, the company's CEO.  It indicates that not only he but others within the company knew about the seal-failure issue (I know I did) and that cleaning the glass was considered (by him) to be an option - EVEN if it meant removing the glass from the frame!  
Doron Polus <dp@slidingdoorco.com>
1/9/2015 11:08:45 AM
Hi all,
Please prepare a sketch of how to clean a door that has leaking gasket.
One without removing frame and the other with.
Please talk between yourself to come up with the best ideas.
I must have it ASAP.
Thank you,
Doron Polus
President

So, we, the employees, were being asked by our company CEO to produce ideas and sketches (it's always helpful when sketches accompany lame ideas) to support the cleaning of a product that cannot be cleaned - in order to dupe our customers into keeping a bad product.


Why can't the glass be cleaned?

The gaskets "leak" an oily residue constantly.  Wiping that residue away is a temporary solution requiring the application of caustic chemicals.  The only solution is to replace the gasket.

Hopefully, the process of removing the frame (described above) and replacing the gasket is intended to be done by factory people, not customers or their contractors, but then why the need for instructions and sketches?  Was the CEO suggesting that this is a viable solution for end-users of his product?  After paying thousands of dollars?

The idea of working with the factory to prevent this from happening in the first place may come to him someday.  Meanwhile, be on the lookout for more Glass Cleaning Instructions from The Sliding Door Company.  


Question for the CEO:

What happens if a child ingests this residue?  Is it safe for children to eat this chemical that you admit is oozing from your products?  I'm guessing it isn't - but confirmation from Doron Polus that his products are safe - despite that they leak an oily residue would be wonderful.



Sunday, March 19, 2017

Why ADA laws matter

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA
became law in 1990. The ADA is a civil rights law that prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities in all areas of public life, including jobs, schools, transportation, and all public and private places that are open to the general public. The purpose of the law is to make sure that people with disabilities have the same rights and opportunities as everyone else.



Americans with Disabilities are a huge portion of our population. Notably, they include American Disabled VETERANS who have served our country most of which now want to work in the workforce.  

What does it say about an American door manufacturer who avoids complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act?  There seem to be only two possibilities - ignorance or intention.  Because I pointed out the ADA violations I know it isn't because of ignorance (anymore).  And we already discovered there is a "profit" motive (pre-cut door frames).

Accessibility requirements with regard to doors are described here and here and here.  Obviously, anybody who is in the business of manufacturing commercial doors for sale in America MUST comply with ADA regulations.  

This fact seems to have gone over the head of The Sliding Door Company.  They apparently regularly violate ADA regulations to save money.  I have described a couple of the problems here and here but there are also ADA violation issues with regard to their threshold ramps which I will describe in a future blog post.  Their product catalogs describe these products as ADA compliant so their customers have no reason to question this until a lawsuit is filed against their CUSTOMER for ADA violations.  Apparently, that's VERY easy to do.

So, door manufacturers who want to keep their customers and who don't want to violate the law need to be diligent about ADA regulations and ensuring that their products comply COMPLETELY.  

Door manufacturers who put profit above the disabled, safety and the law need not comply.





Note: 

1) My father was a disabled veteran.  
2) I've been a technical illustrator for ADA guideline books for almost 20 years.  











Wednesday, March 15, 2017

Witness this...

In a previous blog post, I suggested that The Sliding Door Company might be getting "cold feet" about giving testimony at a deposition.  I suggested their testimony might not align well with the provable facts.  It won't.

It wouldn't be right for me to complain if I hadn't ALREADY given my own testimony to TSDC's new attorneys.  

Indeed, I had to drag my butt to downtown LA, pay $40 for parking, and spend a whole day testifying to their attorneys - a prestigious nationally known law firm.

They grilled me for a whole day... with questions like "What was your first job when you graduated high school... and what was your next job after that..."  It was, indeed, exhausting.  I can imagine nobody enjoys giving testimony in a deposition, but it is part of the legal process and has to be done.

So, I went into the "lion's den" and answered their questions truthfully.  The environment was very pleasant, their attorneys were very polite.

They didn't get what they wanted from me however.  I suspect they were looking for some sort of admission that I had received the "Employee Handbook" despite not having signed the receipt for it.  They came up empty-handed in this regard.  Other documents which actually displayed my signature, I had no problem identifying and confirming.

All-in-all, I think I did pretty good in my deposition.  I was truthful, and encountered no questions I had difficulty answering honestly.  I was asked about ADA issues and questioned about how I identified them.  I was asked about safety issues and questioned about how I identified those.  

Almost comically, their attorney asked me if I could quote the International Building Code and ADA guidelines, by number, that The Sliding Door Company was in violation of (as I have done throughout this blog).  Of course, without the code books in front of me, I could not.

Their attorney was questioning my competence and knowledge with regard to architecture and engineering.  I have 40 years of architecture and engineering experience.  I think I might have frustrated their attorney's efforts to suggest I was speculating on safety and ADA issues.

At the end of the day, there were still a few questions remaining - especially regarding the invasion of my privacy and spyware installed on my home computer. The deposition may have to be continued.


It gets better...

As we were packing up (off the record) The Sliding Door Company's attorney apparently lost composure.  I was informed that TSDC's attorneys were reading my blog... THIS blog.  Furthermore, it was suggested that I had made public the name of the person who had breast cancer surgery in this blog post.  Since I didn't know who might have had breast cancer surgery at the time, I was confident I had NOT identified anyone on my blog and told them so.  In defending this accusation, TSDC's OWN ATTORNEY identified the person who had "emergency breast cancer surgery" TO ME.  


Let me say that again...

The Sliding Door Company's attorney representing one of the largest and most prestigious law firms in the country, apparently broke the most sacred of trusts, attorney-client privilege and gave extremely personal information about their client to someone who is BLOGGING about them.


I'm NOT them...

Despite the fact that The Sliding Door Company violated my privacy repeatedly, I never did, and never will violate the privacy of the person who has breast cancer despite that they may be testifying against me.    
Now that I know who it is, I want to publicly offer my heartfelt support to them.



Sunday, March 12, 2017

Cold Feet?

When it comes to giving testimony, The Sliding Door Company seems to be getting "cold feet".  I've actually lost track of how many times they have "objected" to giving testimony at a deposition.


Remember this blog post?  They had already cancelled twice back then.  

And now, facing a lawsuit, they have objected to being deposed at least two more times as of this writing.  

The risk of perjury may be part of the problem.  Nobody wants to risk a felony and possible jail time unnecessarily.  Additionally, employers who ask employees to lie in court are committing subornation perjury and are, in essence, committing perjury along with their employees.  


Justice carries a sword for a reason!
This is a sticky situation for The Sliding Door Company, in my opinion.  They have been in the habit of deceiving their customers and others for so long that they fell back on their habitual dishonesty to cover up illegal activities when I pointed them out.  Short of an explanation of why their commercial doors don't need to comply with ADA, and why their engineering documents don't match their products, I think they are pretty much screwed with regard to my case.  

And why not just delay as long as possible?  It is their right, right?  Well, as I mentioned in another blog, that could well be seen as "obstruction of justice".  

And, of course, I'll continue to blog about them... because we're only JUST getting started...