A few weeks ago, I penned a consumer alert on CVS, to warn about their deceptive business practices.
For example, the coprorate giant advertised sales on the shelves in their retail outlets, which were not honored at the cash register at check out.
For consumers who were expecting a discount, it amounted to one big rip-off!
Until CVS got caught, that is.
Shortly after a lawsuit was filed for damages, CVS settled the charges out-of-court without admitting fault.
But, weeks later, I also became victim of their dishonest attempt to lure customers into buying items on the premise they were on sale, when - in fact - CVS did not intend to honor the advertised sale price.
After my own consumer alert was published on the Internet, a government agency also stepped in and began an investigation into the deceptive business practices at the pharmacy.
Now, it appears that Pavilions has also jumped on the dishonest bandwagon.
The other morning, for instance, I was standing in line at he check-out counter, when I witnessed an exchange between a customer and a clerk which turned out to be an eye-opening experience.
For example, at least four items on sale, were not properly charged to the shopper.
In fact, if the middle-aged man was not on top of things, he probably would have been overcharged for the goods and never been the wiser.
A pie advertised at $5.99 was rung up at $7.99, for instance.
Because the Pavilion's clerk wouldn't accept his word for it - I was forced to wait in line along with the disgruntled man - until a box girl dashed back and verified the advertised sale price.
When corrections were made, it turns out Pavilions would have charged the hapless neighborhood resident about five or six dollars in excess of the sum actually due!
Needless to say, I paid attention when I sauntered up to have my groceries tabulated.
Shortly after my purchases were bagged up, I strode over to the Starbuck's outlet at the streetside of the spacious newly-renovated Pavilion's supermarket, for a cup of Earl Grey tea.
As I sat there, savoring the tasty hot beverage, a bit of the conversation going down around me fell on my alert ears.
Judging from what I overheard from employees on a break, Pavilions also appears to engage in other questionable practices which are downright disturbing.
It was revealed that day that several of the workers at Pavilions have relatives in gainful employment there, too.
From an ethical point of view, it's a highly irregular practise, for sure.
When the store first opened weeks ago, and a call went out for employees, were candidates hired based on their skills and overrall experience (and a resume verifying a work history), or did management hire based on nepotism?
If relatives got a priority nod, that was hardly fair to outsiders who applied, wouldn't you agree?
From a practical point of view, nepotism is not politically correct in the workplace, either.
If there was ever a question about productivity (alleged theft, whatever) levelled at a worker - common sense dictates - the relatives would vouch for (and protect) their own!
Along the same lines of thinking, it should be obvious that if an unhappy shopper lodged a complaint against an employee - for being rude or unprofessional - it is doubtful that the relatives on the sidelines would make good independent witnesses.
In a nutshell, an incestuous workplace like that, is trouble waiting to happen!
While I am on the subject of Pavilions, I have to note for the record, that a couple of racist African-American security guards are continuing to annoy and intimidate a few of the white shoppers.
That's what happens when you bring in uneducated workers from the struggling lower class (brimming with resentment towards privileged whites) - outfit them in a security guard's uniform - and bestow upon them a little authority they can't handle.
Managers at Pavilions need their heads examined!
They sure haven't been thinking straight.
Or, perhaps those unanswered complaints to the executive offices, say it all.
Pavilions doesn't give a damn!
