My second phone call from Lawyer/CPA Bob was really just an “Aha!” message saying he would accept the bet I offered in the post, An FCA Affiliate Speaks Up.
Except my exact quote was “I’d be willing to bet…” which, in simple English, means “I would be willing…with certain conditions.”
Here’s what I actually wrote:
I’d be willing to bet my salary and Mr. Slocum’s almost $50,000 salary that Lawyer/CPA Bob doesn’t get out of bed at 2 AM for anything close to what the average funeral director makes.
In fact, the phrase “I’d be willing to bet” or “I’d bet” are common figures of speech or colloquialisms and are understood by most English speakers to be non-literal exaggerations.
Do we believe that a teenager who says “If I have to get braces I’ll die!” is actually afraid they will kill her?
Or that a man who proclaims a new device as “the best thing since sliced bread” is serious about the implications to society of the new gadget?
Should Lawyer/CPA Bob claim that I made an actual bet, I’d point out that the bet is difficult to distinguish. Is he claiming that he does get out of bed at 2:00 AM for a sum close to what the average funeral director makes?
If so, we’ll have to figure out what the average funeral director makes. Then we have to see how close Lawyer/CPA Bob’s salary is to the amount.
Of course, “close” is relative. How will we determine if the amounts are “close?” Is there an international designation for the specific amount the term implies?
And would Lawyer/CPA Bob have to prove that he actually gets up at 2:00 AM on a regular basis (at least as often as the typical funeral director does) or would proof of a few late nights a month be good enough for a court of law?
And who enforces bets? Are we in Las Vegas, Reno or Atlantic City?
I’d be interested in hearing some legal opinion on how a rhetorical comment in a editorial could be construed as an actual bet.
I’d almost bet… oops, can’t say that. I’m fairly certain (in a non-threatening, editorial way) that I’ve got some protection under the First Amendment. I also believe that I have not threatened or libeled Mr. Slocum, Ms. Bennett or Lawyer/CPA Bob in any way.
Mr. Slocum responded with well-reasoned emails and an invitation to call him if I wanted to talk more about his company. Ms. Bennett offered her opinion and asked me “Since when is that wrong?” I offered my opinion back to her in the post, An FCA Affiliate Speaks Up.
Now Lawyer/CPA Bob decides that mildly-harrassing phone calls, placed from a “restricted” number, are appropriate to the conversation. He’s clearly calling for personal reasons, as he won’t reveal his last name or contact information.
He’s wrong. Frankly, the only reason I can imagine that he would make such calls and vague quasi-threats is that it gives him some pleasure to intimidate others.
I am not intimidated, but I understand his initial viewpoint: he likes Mr. Slocum.
I’ll grant that many people may like Mr. Slocum. Heck, after a conversation, I might like Mr. Slocum.
But Lawyer/CPA Bob decided to sink to harrassment, while my main complaint remains the same: FCA’s primary public interaction (with non-members – the vast majority of Americans) is fear-based. FCA is best served when they get stories placed in news sources that scare the public into signing up for memberships or buying publications.
When 70% of your annual expenses pay employee-related costs (salaries, benefits, payroll taxes, etc.) the main purpose of your organization is to fund employees.
Are the employees still doing the work of the organization? Gosh, I hope so. Otherwise, they’d just be stealing from their members.
I’m sure that Mr. Slocum and others within local FCA’s believe they are doing important work. Unfortunately, they equate choosing a funeral home based upon price as the most intelligent and savvy move.
They reinforce this by falsely accusing the majority of funeral directors of being greedy or crooks.
I disagree with that remark and I encourage all funeral directors to educate your community.
If you don’t, FCA will. And Clearly, based upon FCA’s tax returns, it pays to do so.
July 11, 2008 at 5:23 pm
Are lawyer/cpa Bob’s phone calls to you generating billable hours to FCA? I wonder what impact that has on FCA’s bottom line.
And let me get this straight: a lawyer is trying to intimidate you in order to get the point across that the FCA *doesn’t* use fear-based promotional tactics?
Makes perfect sense to me.
July 11, 2008 at 11:00 pm
Can I scream foul ball here?
I’m tired of reading funeral stories that always have a negative slant with additional incendiary “insights” by the FCA.
Has anyone on this blog ever designed and built a home? How about a major remodeling project to make your home more energy efficient? Talk about a stressful and expensive experience!
I’ve been tracking all of my choices (along with their associated costs) using an Excel spreadsheet and to date I’ve made 338 decisions.
Builders/contractors are famous for using “contractor grade” (AKA: CRAP) materials. Anything above that is an upgrade. If they can install a $3.99 light fixture or a $49.00 window without your knowledge, they will.
As I design my home — a relatively small, ranch-style, three bedroom model — I’ve changed windows, roof shingles, tile, carpeting, siding, appliances, light fixtures, basement waterproofing, and heating/air-conditioning systems at least three times. I knew absolutely NOTHING about these items so each decision had to be carefully researched as I have to live with the decisions for a very long time.
Additionally, if you don’t personally visit the construction site daily, 60% of contractors will make shortcuts that will be difficult, if not impossible, to rectify after the initial damage has been done.
Now, the FCA will argue that my home building/funeral purchase comparison is flawed. They’ll say that when you arrange a funeral you’ve got to make expensive decisions in less than 2 hours whereas designing and building a home can be done over weeks, or perhaps even months (or years).
Not true. When you start to build, the wheels rapidly spin in motion and you have precious time to make VERY expensive decisions.
Choices? Come now. When you REALLY sit back and analyze the situation, there are remarkably few choices that must be made during a typical funeral arrangement. Designing a kitchen on the other hand is mind boggling as there are literally HUNDREDS of cabinet/countertop combinations. The same with a bath. We won’t even talk about flooring materials. Choose the “wrong” casket are you’re out $2,500.00. Mess up your flooring materials and you’re out $30k.
Preparedness? In 2008, if a consumer doesn’t have a clue about their choices when death occurs and the approximate cost of services in their community then I’d have to say shame on them. Home construction and building materials on the other hand are virgin territory for 95% of the American public. Worse, no one gives you a unbiased, honest-to-God straight answer about anything.
Don’t want a funeral? Arrange a $1,500.00 direct cremation. Don’t want Corian counter tops in your kitchen? Good luck because there are 500 more samples — with prices ranging from $3.50 to $120.00 per square foot — for you to choose from.
The FCA, Money magazine, and other media outlets will all argue that at the end of the day, funerals are nothing more than a consumer product. In short, you should shop for the best price. Fine. Then my comparison to building a home stands.
Consumers have choices. Consumers aren’t stupid. Believe it or not, some consumers feel good about arranging a funeral service with all of the bells and whistles and they’ll graciously pay $10 – $15k for a funeral that in their eyes, is remarkable and reflective of their lifestyle.
To really serve the American public and help them save TENS OF THOUSANDS of dollars, the Funeral Consumers Alliance should change their name (and agenda) to the Fair Contractors Alliance. Then they can expose and go after contractors who use 2″ x 4″ wood instead of 2″ x 6″, contractors who use cheap roof felt instead of ice-guard under your shingles, and hundreds of other situations where people are being financially abused every day.
Why don’t they do this? Because it’s too much work and there’s little media interest. It’s far easier — and much “tastier” ratings-wise — to say, “Undertaker takes advantage of grieving family.”
We have our critics because we’re easy, roll-over-and-say-nothing targets. Thanks Tim for not rolling over and saying nothing.
July 13, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Michelle and Tim -
Stop your speculating right now. You’re out of line. As I told Tim, I have no knowledge of “lawyerbob” and I invited Tim to call or email me if he could give me a lead.
I’ve had enough of your venomous insinuations about FCA. If you want to keep escalating the rhetoric, be prepared to be called on it. As I’ve said before, you have every right to disagree with us, but you do not have the right to poison the well by making accusations about us based on nothing. If you want to be treated with professionalism, you need to return the courtesy.
Now, in case I wasn’t clear: email me at josh@funerals.org if you have any information about “lawyerbob.” I’m just as curious to know about what’s going on as you are.
I’ll also be responding shortly to your inaccurate representation of FCA’s finances.
July 13, 2008 at 8:49 pm
Mr. Slocum:
I invite you to send a response to my posts about the nature of your company and your finances. I’m sure there are nuances of your 2006 tax return that I don’t fully understand.
And I’m pretty sure that Michelle’s comments about Lawyer/CPA Bob’s hours and FCA were tongue-in-cheek. She made them before I knew from you that you don’t know who Bob is.
If Bob calls me back, I’ll be happy to ask him to call you. He refuses to give me his full name or contact information, or I would have forwarded it to you already.
As for the comments on this blog: please be aware that as a blog site, we offer editorials and opinion. Any opinion based upon facts are typically backed up with the original news report or document.
That’s why we included a link to the 2006 U.S. Tax Return I procured from Guidestar in the story about your finances.
If my math is incorrect, please show me where I’ve added or divided incorrectly and I’ll issue a retraction.
The conclusions I draw from the facts presented are, quite simply, my conclusions. As a writer, I share my own opinions with my readers. And I welcome those about whom I speak to share their own insight or comments.
I did not choose to make accusations “based upon nothing.” I responded to an article which quotes your desire for people to be shocked.
I appreciate that you disagree with my assessment of your organization. Whether my comments are venomous or poison the well, we’ll have to either disagree or come to some terms about what those words really mean.
Whether you realize it or not, everytime you get a quote or story placed in a mainstream media piece about the funeral industry, you hurt the feelings and careers of thousands of people. You offend tens of thousands of hardworking Americans who toil countless hours at all time of the day and night to care for grieving families.
But you justify your destructive comments and accusations by telling yourself that you’re doing something to stop the precious few who do harm to their client families.
I simply disagree with your organization and I decided to figure out how your group is run. Once again, if I’ve reported the numbers incorrectly, please let me know. I will gladly make any changes that are supported by proof.
I look forward to your comments and response. And I will not tolerate rude or destructive comments from any readers, whether it’s Lawyer/CPA Bob or a funeral professional.
July 14, 2008 at 10:29 pm
Tim – I’m not able to order supplies for my company – but tomorrow, I’m calling you and giving you a $50 credit card order for keeping the FCA on the run. You have the guts to do what NFDA, OGR, NSM, and all of the other “wanna be spokespersons” lack.
Tim Trotten – Out knight in shining armor.