He's doing a Good Deed for the homeless : Random Act of Kindness

Sometimes, random acts of kindness inspire us and remind us of the magic of humanity's teamwork...

     Today, through my travels around the city, I became aware of a young man, named Mark Bustos who does regular good deeds… for the homeless.  

     The young hair stylist traverses the city--on one of his two days off per week--and gives free haircuts and/or beard trims to homeless individuals.  

He didn't seek public renown or credit for it.  

It was just his way of "giving back".  

It is amazing!  And I wanted to share the good news with you.  May it inspire you to do a good deed.  Share the story, too.

Multiple (Social) Personalities

     It occurred to me that modern technology has allowed people to have multiple personalities online.  Friends of mine show different sides of themselves to their coworkers, family and different cliques of friends.  However, they also have various personas via (to name a few) multiple Facebook pages, eBay, Pinterest, Blendr, Grindr, RentBoy.com, Craigslist, online dating profiles, group video games, Etsy, blogs and chatrooms.  Some may enable people, some may embolden, some may encourage expression, and some may camouflage people.  Also take into consideration that psychologists say how most folks don't even recognize their true selves… until after much reflection.  Ah, the many facets of humanity.  

Spoiled = Contempt

Look at Hilton's "welcome page" for guests, or its Careers website for prospective hires.  


H Hospitality - We're passionate about delivering exceptional guest experiences.

I Integrity - We do the right thing, all the time.

L Leadership - We're leaders in our industry and in our communities.

T Teamwork - We're team players in everything we do.

O Ownership - We're the owners of our actions and decisions.

N Now - We operate with a sense of urgency and discipline.

     
Advisors might suggest that the family shuts up their bratty son.  Hilton's trouble on British Airways Flight 269 began moments after it left the ground. It continued for almost the entire 10.5-hour flight, according to a 17-page affidavit by FBI agent David Gates.  In a series of tirades, he threatened to kill several flight attendants and a co-pilot... and threatened to get them fired, the affidavit said.  Eventually, the pilot authorized a team of five flight attendants to restrain Hilton with aviation handcuffs.  "I could get you all fired in five minutes!  I know your boss," Hilton said in one of the document's few quotes that didn't include cursing, "My father will pay this out, he has done it before.  Dad paid $300,000 last time!"  According to the affidavit, Hilton acknowledged calling other passengers "peasants".  How did the Hilton family react?  They blamed their son's behavior on medication… having nothing to do with his upbringing or home-based attitude.

     It sounds so similar to a scandal about a Korean Airline's Vice President (daughter of the company's owner), that aired around the same time.  Korean Air Line officials said that their Chairman, Cho Yang-ho, accepted the resignation of that daughter, Cho Hyun-ha, his eldest daughter.  She was under public "fire" following media revelations that a Korean Air Lines flight from New York to South Korea was ordered by her to return to the airport gate.  There, she ordered a senior crew member to get off the plane.  Causing delay for all the passengers, not to mention the planes that had been waiting to leave behind that one… or the planes waiting to use the empty gate.  Why did she do all that?  Cho was angered that she had been served bagged macadamia nuts.  FWI: Its illegal for civilians to alter the route of a plane, once it has left the gate. Firing her probably won't solve the inbred issues.  Self-important relatives of company owners, who aren't "reined in" by the owners, can have a tendency to "boss around" company employees.  

Supremely important is the whole notion of Customer Service.  And Image (something that Paris Hilton seems to know something about, which reminds me…)

Perhaps, so many company owners and their families have forgotten that they made their fortunes from the general public, whom their kids obliviously scorn.  

Judging A Book By Its Cover : A Crap Business Workplace

     When a business owner has the financial capacity but instead chooses to underpay his employees, the owner often doesn't care about the ramifications.  The stress put on the employee and their loved ones.  When you don't have enough money for your needs, it takes an emotional and psychological toll on a person… which leads to physical illness (which they can't afford).  It causes an impact on their nutrition, causes domestic arguments and strife, and in some cases causes fear that their bills can't be paid on time.  All the while, a mere several thousand dollars more per year would solve some of the employees' problems.  Struggling to do your job for unfair wages is torture.  
     The last client that we encountered typified such a thief.
     For the past several months, I've had the pleasure to work alongside a Manhattan business consultant with an excellent pedigree.  I got the position via a connection with a former Vice President at my old job.  Under false pretenses, both of us had been recruited/lured to work at my former company.  The VP admired my qualities and kept in touch after she resigned. 
     The consultant is a discerning lady who helps smaller retail businesses throughout the city.  The goals are to observe, advise, streamline, correct, retool, refine and prioritize the business plan, its employees and owners, and the procedures and flow of information.  Thus, I've learned over and over that (despite the expression, "You can't judge a book by its cover", you can certainly notice the tell-tale signs).  Here's one example.
     The consultant's most recent client (Mr. D) owned a small business selling items to non-profit organizations.  His facility was located in the industrial/warehouse section of Maspeth, which is called the armpit of Queens.  The consultant (of purely European decent) was known for occasionally employing a feng-shui expert to improve energy and profitability in the workplace, and I wondered what that expert would say about this business' location.  It was amidst FedEx and UPS shipping facilities, and it neighbored a bottle recycling facility, scrap metal yard, and assorted warehouses.  Six roads converged at its address, from all haphazard angles, without a traffic light or street signs.  The whole area was in between two cemeteries and under two expressway overpasses.  The vicinity was noisy and full of dirty trucks.  Not the place that you'd expect to find a showroom selling to non-profits.  But it was cheap rent.
     The consultant thought it was a good idea to have me read the "help wanted" ads that had been posted on online job boards for Mr. D.  The first incongruence was that the ads  listed the job location in Astoria!  And Sunnyside.  And Long Island City.  And Woodside!  Which were lies designed to lure residents in those nicer neighborhoods to the job in Maspeth.  The ads also described it as "a quick commute from the city".  Equally untrue.  If you took the 7 train to the nearest subway station, it was then at least a 10-minute walk to the job (past the cemetery and under the 2 overpasses).  If you took the 7 train to Hunter's Point, just before the train enters the city, you could await the non-reliable Queens bus Q67 (which came every half hour, when it came at all) to a drop-off closer to the address.  Definitely not a quick commute, nor convenient.  But, the owner drove a new Mercedes E-class, so it was a quick commute… by car.
     The "help wanted" ad also described the building as having been designed "by a famous architect", affording great views of the Manhattan skyline, full of light, and that would be "inspiring for heart and soul".  Using Google Maps, I checked out the images of the area that I was about to visit.  It looked like a dump.  Nowhere did I see such a building.  The address was a two-story warehouse-looking structure.  I had a bad feeling about the whole thing and doubted Mr. D's honesty.  When I arrived, this is the door buzzer that welcomed me.

     If you can't be bothered to create a welcoming "first impression" for customers, employees or vendors, then that's not good.  Here's what the "inspiring" neighborhood looked like.

     When questioned, the owner claimed that the ads represented the facility "that he wanted to have".  Personally, I considered it false advertising, to lure employees.  Before being hired by him, I remember him asking to meet twice… always on a Friday, because that's when the employee's "group lunches" occurred.  Ten employees currently worked there.  The employees were paraded in front of us, with their smiles and testaments of how much they enjoyed working there.  Before the two lunches, both meetings only took place in the man's showroom.  We weren't allowed to peek and see what was behind the curtain (literally, a curtain covered the doorway to the rest of his facility).  If you assumed that everything beyond the curtain resembled the showroom, then you'd think it was a wonderful place to work.  Even the main lunchroom looked nice (see below).

But, I soon learned that there were two lunch areas.  The nicer, larger one was only used on Fridays.  Otherwise, employees stood in the other kitchen (see below), 

while the owner (and his wife, who acted as a supervisor at their company) ate daily in the nicer kitchen, alone.  The smaller kitchen reminded me distinctly of the tiny "communal lunch/utility space" that my previous job had designated for its retail employees (in a summertime blog post, last year).  It indicated a lack of respect for the employees that were making the man his money.  It also indicated a deceitful "appearance" to Friday visitors.  (Later on, I asked employees about those lunches, and they told me that the lunches were usually pot-luck and not company-paid.  If the owner did order lunch for the 10 employees, it usually cost him less than he spent weekly for gasoline for his Mercedes).
     During the "interviews", the man "grilled" me with many criss-crossing questions, testing my abilities and skills.  When it came to "character references", my reply was unique from the consultant.  I simply took out my cellphone and placed it on the table.  I told him that he could immediately dial any of the 200 numbers in it, and get a glowing reference to my character.  He admired my spark.  
     When I asked about his skills, he was proud to tell the consultant and I about a recent incident, where he thought he had defended himself grandly.  Unlike two of his employees who parked on the street (and whose cars got scratched/dented), he had negotiated with a nearby business to be allowed to park his Mercedes in their private parking lot.  One day, another local business owner--with a similar arrangement--took the last available spot.  Mr. D was livid.  Thinking that his arrangement outclassed the other guy's, Mr D entered into a toe-to-toe shouting match--demanding to have that last parking spot. Mr. D proudly told us that he even phoned the parking lot's owner to bring him into the fight, and he even called the police!  Why?  Because the other driver called him an Idiot.  "In my country," Mr. D told us, "You can't call me names and do such things."  I felt like saying, "This is America, pal, so get used to it."  Needless to say, the parking lot owner was so upset at Mr. D's lucid behavior (and having to deal with the police), the he revoked Mr. D's parking privilege.  I was amazed at such childish behavior, and also amazed that Mr. D was actually proud of it.  
     Mr. D claimed to be a struggling fledgling business, and paid the consultant and I much less than we deserved (she called it a pittance), but I had to go where she went.  Once hired, the consultant and I worked side-by-side to analyze the goings-on of the business.  That's also when we got to see what was behind the "curtain" (just like the Wizard of Oz).  Here's what it looks like.

     Even the nicer lunchroom was treated as sloppy storage... until "guests" were expected.  I'd say that any business owner who is so careless and unorganized, and condones such working conditions doesn't truly care about their operations.

     The consultant (2nd image below) and I worked on "desks" that were made out of "recycled" wooden doors!  Mr. D was so cheap that he didn't even buy proper furniture--except for his office.  

     The millionaire was so cheaply stingy that he used Chrome as his office software platform, because it was free.  The 20-year old "computer tech" (whom got paid $12,000 per year for almost full-time work) complained that such software was not intended to be used by 10 people for a small business.  I quickly learned that all of the internal processes were makeshift by the owner (and his wife) to save them money.  
     I offer this analogy: A guy wants to have a desk.  He doesn't want to spend the money to buy a desk.  So, he goes to a nearby pile of free toothpicks and painstakingly glues them together to create a makeshift desk!  Yes, the finished product might resemble a desk… but its not sturdy or reliable and is prone to collapse at any moment.  That summarizes Mr. D (who was so cheap that he reminded me of my first landlord, described in my Life Story's Nov. 2012 blog posts).
     In one month's time, the business took in hundreds of thousands of dollars, with very little expenditures.  Employees weren't given any medical benefits, and they were paid as "independent contractors", to help the owner's Balance Sheet.  All the employees that we spoke to indicated that they'd been hired at low wages, with the promise of increases, "within a few months".  That never happened.  The Australian guy lured from his job at Best Buy.  The Greek divorcée trying to support her daughter.  The Caucasian girl from Pennsylvania, living with her girlfriend in Flushing.  All had been duped.  
     Already, the third "sales team" had been entirely replaced because they'd walked off the job.  It was becoming a phenomenon.  But, that didn't influence the owner.  He looked for more gullible/cheap help.  The highest-paid employee, getting $35k a year, was responsible for bringing in telephone and online sales equalling $120k--in only two months.  She more than paid for herself in such a short amount of time.  There were no bonuses of any kind.  In fact, that same employee had been hired to do other work, and instead was handling sales.  Meanwhile the owner sat in his office, not exactly leading the business forward.  It seemed so backwards and medieval.   
     Additionally, we quickly learned of the wife's "no talking" rules, during the workday.  We observed her hushing the employees' conversations between each other.  And we heard about the former "policy" of borrowing the bathroom's key from the wife!  So she could keep track of them!
     Mr. D once lectured that "not long ago in America, industrialist corporation owners thought it ok to shoot their own factory employees."  (Historically, that's correct, but Mr. D forgot to mention that the strikers were asking for overdue fair wages/less hours… and the public backlash was tremendous).  Who maintains that kind of contempt for their workers?
     As New Year's approached, it was the consultant's idea to spend some petty-cash for an end-of-the-year reception for the employees.  The owner (and his wife) suggested that everyone bring in some food/refreshments… instead of them paying entirely for it.  The two of them brought in one pie.  I probably spent more on the baked goods and sparkling cider (alcohol wasn't allowed) that I brought.  Others cooked delicious entrees.  The owners even postponed having the "holiday reception" until a half hour before closing time… instead of having a 2-hour midday break, as agreed.  Then, they announced to their employees that the offices would be closed for a week… without pay.  (The owner and his wife were taking a vacation).  
     Soon into January, 3 of the employees abruptly quit.  None of them gave a courtesy two-week's notice.  Smartly, I needed to know their sides of the story.  One young man commuted daily all the way from New Jersey!  He'd been promised over and over again by the owner that they'd soon all be moving to a "new, more comfortable facility" (that would actually have reliable air conditioning/heat).  So, he'd been making his extra long commute, but to no avail.  He had been hired to update the company's website, but instead, the owner had him unloading shipments, and the owner hadn't seriously addressed his web ideas.  (I heard similar complaints from a young woman in her 20s, hired to be a blogger, but was only answering sales calls and handling online orders.  But, she stayed at the job because she desperately didn't have a clue where else to go).  
     Another man who'd quit told me that he'd been recruited by the owner from being a parking valet (making hundreds of dollars in tax-free cash, per week).  But, now he was being asked to drive and do errands for the owner--also being asked to pick up UPS deliveries (to save Mr. D money), and to deliver things all over the city, and to pick up/drop off customers.  He was upset because he was never reimbursed for gas/tolls, and in fact, he was being paid $2 less per hour than had been agreed.  Additionally, he had been asked by the owner's wife to do plenty of nasty "chores" around the facility.  He intended to return to parking cars: less labor, free food and more money.  The third young man was fed up because he'd been suddenly told to help unload a truck, full of deliveries… in the pouring rain… while the owner stood idle and didn't help.  The owner had erected a tarp to protect the merchandise from getting wet, but didn't share concern for the young men helping him.  When this man's clothes and shoes got ruined in the rain (while unloading heavy dusty crates), and he'd injured his shoulder and come down with a sore throat, the owner refused to even pay for his ruined clothes.  An argument ensued, where I had overheard the owner scream at the young man that he could do as he wished because he was the boss.  I was amazed.
     The Greek woman told us how the owners had "invited" her to join them at a sales conference.  They'd also invited her to bring her 10-year-old daughter.  However, their true intention was to use the mother and daughter to help them unload their truck, carry tent supplies, and clean up.  They were never allowed to participate in the reception, and were made to wake up at 8am the next morning to help further.  Who does that?  And to a young girl?  (who never got paid).
     Needless to say, the owner became irrationally irritated whenever the consultant made suggestions to him.  Nothing ever got done.  The owner's wife seemed to take a defensive stance against the consultant, as if the consultant was trying to steal their money for frivolous spending.  An employee whispered to me, "He may be the head of the company, but she's the passive-aggressive 'neck' that turns the head."  After a two-hour temperamental meeting where they combatted against our ideas to streamline procedures (the owner made people abide by 6 pages of 140 status codes!), the owner's wife took him into their office.  We overheard a heated debate.  Then, the door opened and the owner proceeded to tell us that we'd only need to show up at his place one day a week, instead of the agreed-upon three.  And while we were there, he only wanted us to conduct "cold-calling" for him.  That's how he felt we could be most useful to his profits.
     I was happy to leave that place for the last time.  The remaining employees--handling the burden of tasks left by those who had quit--will only suffer if they choose to stay… afraid of seeking a new job.  Currently, they're all dismayed because they're not paid until 4 or 5 days after their pay dates.  Towards the end, the consultant took the employees out for a meal at the closest eatery, a pizzeria that also served hot dishes.  It cost a mere $75; she was delighted to brighten their otherwise paltry existence.  
     The owner's parting words to us (not intended to be heard) were that "we" were the last time he'd hire anybody who wasn't "desperate" to work.  It was probably the rudest comment that the consultant had endured in her career.  But, it had our bond stronger, and she admired my skills.  I suspect that such a business will soon fail.  If not for the sloppy and unprofessionally cheap internal structure, then because of the owner's nasty habit of changing prices at a whim (showroom items and many of the online items aren't priced), charging different amounts for the same things to different buyers, and his habit of selling inferior merchandise at top prices.
     Like I said at the beginning, lying to employees, luring them under false pretenses and making phony promises is like being a thief.  But, I suppose those cheap business owners feel that their poorly-paid employees should stop worrying or simply "trust in God" to make sure everything is okay.  And they can continue paying them poorly.
     I daresay that none of those internal practices surprised me, considering the way the business looks and promotes itself.  Or considering the way its owner behaves.  Sometimes, you truly can tell a book by its cover, and it is best to "read the warning signs" and stay away.  For customers, employees and vendors who are in similar encounters... Don't compromise your integrity.  Something better will come.

If you think Big Band music is boring, I have some recommendations

All of these are available online:

Harry James (1945 live at Culver City) - June Is Busting Out All Over
Hugo Montenegro - You Were Meant for Me/Singing in the Rain
Glen Gray & the Casa Loma Orchestra - Apollo Jumps, (and) Leap Frog
Glenn Miller (on air Volume 8) - Anchors Away
Wilbert Baranco - Bugle Call Rag
Count Basie - The Trolley Song
Judy Garland (from "Strike Up the Band") - Drummer Boy
Bobby Sherwood - T-Bone for Two
Sonny Dunham - Tico Tico
Tommy & Jimmy Dorsey - Brotherly Jump
John Wilson Orchestra - Zing! Went the Strings of My Heart
Charlie Barnet & Jimmy Dorsey - Smiles
Ray Anthony (Volume 2 remastered) - Honey Dripper
Si Zentner - Serenade in Blue
Lester Lanin (live) - Medley: S'Wonderful
Quincy Jones - Choo Choo Ch'Boogie
The Squandronaires - Coach Call Boogie
Artie Shaw - The Glider
Benny Goodman - South of the Border
Glenn Miller and the Air Force Band (remastered 2001) - Peggy the Pin-Up Girl
Jimmy Mundy - Fiesta in Brass
Mills Brothers - Cielito Lindo
Ted Heath - The Hawk Talks

The Downfall of GLEE on TV

     When the TV show Glee aired in 2009, it was sensational.  So full of life, inspiration, music and choreography, it became a nationwide phenomenon.  Audiences were still fondly remembering the successfully gleeful 2007 movie/musical Hairspray.  Until then, people might not have mentioned a school Glee Club, unless they referred to a 1950s documentary.  I remember reading an article in Entertainment Weekly, "Has there ever been a TV show more aptly named than Glee?  It both embodies and inspired exactly that quality.  Yet if I tell you the show is about a high school glee club and features bursting-into-song musical numbers, you might react as I did initially: I wanted no part of that.  But this comedy from creator Ryan Murphy (Nip/Tuck) is so good—so funny, so bulging with vibrant characters—that it blast past any defenses you might put up again it.  Glee will not stop until it wins you over utterly."  Which was true… for awhile.
     An adult fan wrote, "The show taught me that everyone has a story, and not to 'write people off' via stereotypes."  Another fan (which are called Gleeks) was "outed" at middle-school and found strength in the show's gay characters.  The prom episodes instilled hope in many students.  It discussed topics like bullying, harassment, exclusion, pregnancy, peer pressure, nutrition, embracing quirks, forgiveness and cooperation.  A Glee moviegoer said, "When I got into Glee, life was hard, dealing with the loss of my father and being different.  But then I really wanted to change and be a positive happier person—a light in people's lives."  
     Early on, the show won huge audience viewership (amongst the top ten most-watched shows), and consistently earned Emmy and Golden Globe nominations.  It won its highest viewership in Season 2.  But then, the show began to sag.  Its as if the show knew this, and created a "Glee Movie Musical", after the 3rd Season.  As if to capture the magic… before it was eradicated.  From that point onward, the show became more and more disjointed.  Just like simultaneous TV failure, Smash (that had started with equally high potential), the series tried too hard to balance too many fractured sub-plots.  Smash disintegrated because too many people messed around with the show—fissuring too many cracks into its structure.  The same thing happened to Glee, which had half of its characters based in Manhattan (just like Smash), at that time.  (I stay in touch with dancers from the show).
     Today, I was watching an earlier Season 2 episode of Glee and noticed 8 "producers" in the credits.  Compare that with the 17 "producers" in its current (last) season!  As the expression goes, "Too many chefs spoil the broth", which is nothing new in big business television.  Shows that succeed are the ones that stay the same.  Perhaps the creators should've let the graduating class fade out, instead of trying to keep them in the script—which stretched the screen-time too thin for everyone.  Perhaps they should've cultivated a new set of characters, so the former ones only appeared for cameos.  Part of the fun of Glee's earlier seasons was its intoxicating enthusiasm of high school trepidation.  That's where the magic was.  That was its niche.
     It also was won audiences' hearts because it celebrated characters like Artie and Sue's sidekick, Becky.  It had an international, inter-religious crowd of all sexual orientations.  The meek principle, the haltingly-progressive guidance counselor, Will's overbearing first wife, the football coach, and the club's silent pianist gave a well-rounded patina to the colorful series.
     Personally, I think that the best episodes involve life at the high school.  Not about life amidst the characters going into "over-the-top" successful opportunities in NYC.  Had they brought in a new class of characters, it might've kept that energy riding high.  As you can see, instead, they brought in characters and then abruptly "dropped" them.  You'd tune in for the next episode and find that a character or two was suddenly gone.  Without explanation.  That is a blatant "cardinal sin" in storytelling.  (In fact, Coach Sue began making fun of that perplexing idiosyncrasy in final episodes).  If the show's creators don't care about its characters, then the audience won't either.  Why should the audience "feel" for characters, if those characters won't be there after two episodes?  That was especially disheartening, because fans of the show admired the lovingly-created character development of the first two seasons… and the introduction of Blaine's romance in season 3.  In fact, the sudden removal of Blane's Warblers was a tragic mistake of the show.  It ripped out the contributing talent of amazing dancers and singers that had brightened the show… and added a gay sparkle.  (I still keep in touch with some of the Warblers, as they've pursued new ventures).  Instead, the show's re-appropriated budget seemed to bring a new group of disjointed "NYC college characters"—each also abruptly removed from the show.
     The débacle was the utter loss of plot continuity!  It was as if there were polar-opposite groups of writers and producers.  One group would knock the other unconscious and drive the script in one direction.  Then, the other group would awaken and knock the first group unconscious to drive the plot in reverse.  Back and forth.  That is how you lose audiences.  How many times do you want to watch the same characters break apart then get back together again?  How many times do you want to watch older characters steal the spotlight from newly-budding characters (whom appear to have amazing abilities… if they could only get "center stage" for more than five minutes).  Talented actors, singers and dancers vanished or were shoved to the background as the producers seemingly played "favorites" with underachieving characters.  Sub-plots of petty minutia took precedence over the spirit of teamwork and striving against a common enemy.  Even the quantity of "famous cameos" dropped.
     Did viewers really want to watch characters arrive newly in Manhattan and miraculously win high-profile jobs a Vogue-ish magazines or win leads in Broadway (not even Off-Broadway) shows?  Was that the modest show that had won their hearts?  Sort of like initially-wildly-popular True Blood, which—after the first season—veered and careened entirely off the original plot-lines.  (I know… I've read the books that the series was supposed to be based on: the books are AMAZINGLY better!  I'd HIGHLY recommend them).  Just like Glee, it rapidly lost viewership (the bell curve still existed) and languished in its last season.
     Thus, current audiences probably have a flow-chart and bulletin boards to keep track of which characters are still appearing, which story-lines have been cut, and which people make oddly-placed 5-second reappearances.  The multitude of producers has married-off the couples: no more loose ends there.  Tonight was the series conclusion.  The most recent episodes shed dim light, in comparison to the show's initial sparkle.  At this point, audiences were just waiting for the cast to take its final bow.  
     Having just watched the last episode, I daresay that if they'd done that plot-line two years ago, it might've saved the show.  Allowing new members to embrace the club's ideals and "strut their stuff", while letting alums inspire them from afar or as teachers for the new school's several performing groups.
     Maybe, years from now, someone will compose an exposé about what it was like dealing with all the abrupt story changes.  That would certainly garner audiences' attention again.  Hopefully, some young storyline writer has been inspired by the early segments of the series, and will create fanciful and captivating entertainments for future audiences.