The first step to completing my basement was to have some HVAC and plumbing work done. The furnace and water heater were smack in the middle, which just cut up the space horribly. Figuring that we'll be in the house for the next 14-16 years (and maybe more, who knows?), I decided that it would pay back to have both replaced with high efficiency units that could be mounted at the crawl space wall and vented horizontally - which allowed for the placement away from my existing flue (the existing units couldn't be moved far because of flue rise/run requirements.)
I called five companies, got four to visit the house, three provided bids. I fired questions back about each to ensure they were doing what I wanted (and had accounted for the various complexities of the job!). Additionally, I researched each with the BBB and time in service. Through the question period, two took themselves out of the running due to lax responses (one company decided that their estimator perhaps didn't do a good job and wanted to send another person back out!) The final company, based upon everything, decided that they could do it for a little less than initially proposed, had a spotless BBB record, and 63 years in business. How could I go wrong?
My wife calls them Frick and Frack, the clowns. I think they are just good Christians, and since it took God 6 days to create the universe, and not wanting to show God up, they'll get nothing done in less time. (Mind you, the initial estimate was for two full days, one for furnace, one for water heater.) They started last Monday. That was a 14 hour day. Tuesday was a parts gathering day. Wednesday was 8 hours, as was Thursday. The furnace was installed on Monday, and up and running Monday night (11:30pm!), but it was the wrong unit (not what was specified on my bid sheet.) Wednesday they brought in the water heater, (after carrying out my old one) and replaced the blower motor on the furnace. Thursday, the water heater was set in place, hooked up, vented, complete: But wouldn't light. Diagnostics indicated a bad gas valve (that's just pure, dumb luck!). After they left, the furnace wouldn't run. Turns out the plumber had had to do a little electrical to hook up the water heater, and had mis-wired the switch to the furnace, robbing it of power. I looked up the schematics, and rewired the switch myself, restoring power (and heat)at 9pm Thursday night. (It was in the low 20s outside, and down to 65 degrees inside when I got it restarted.) Friday, they showed up late, which required that we get a house sitter so my wife and I could leave to pick up our dog from the vet (another story, another time.) While we were gone, they determined that they couldn't repair the water heater, and removed it. To make us feel good, the HVAC guy wanted to install a humidifier, free of charge. I told him no. I wanted the correct furnace and water heater (oh, yes, it was an incorrect unit too, same part #, but not correct type per the bid sheet), and didn't want anything else with water. Did I mention that the furnace dripped water for 4 days due to a leak in the flue? That the overburdened condensate pump they installed also overflowed for 4 days? Both of those problems were fixed on Friday with the repair of the flue and the installation of a floor drain, rendering the pump unnecessary. I don't want anything else that can leak water!
It appears that they can't get either of the units specified (furnace or water heater) - although both are in the catalogs of the respective companies. They are upgrading me to a very nice tankless water heater, installation was begun yesterday (Saturday), but couldn't be completed because they failed to load enough vent piping (specifically elbows) onto the plumber's truck. We nixed any work for today, wanting a quiet day without workers tramping in and out of the house during the late afternoon and early evening. We are scheduled to begin Monday at 10am (that will be the sixth work day!). I'm not sure what happens with the furnace - we'll have to sit down next week (the company salesman and I) and decide. It would appear that the one installed will work fine (heating), the only question will be if it has sufficient airflow to prevent the AC coils from freezing in the summer. They are talking about giving me a 2 year full replacement guarantee.
Funny thing: On Wednesday, the main office called and indicated that I hadn't filled out the paperwork nor paid for the furnace installation. I told them that I would be doing paperwork and writing checks after the City Inspector passed the work specified in the permits (oh, yes! We do have permits!) - and they should be neither surprised nor ask again. They haven't. And if the inspector indicates anything is not up to code, they will have to fix that before any money changes hands. I'm holding that over them.
It's interesting. The company stands behind their 100% satisfaction guarantee, and they seem to be trying to live up to the promise. They haven't done anything unprofessional, other than make mistakes (and have some bad luck on the way to compound it!) The furnace install took at least an hour longer because the breaker failed - and when power didn't come on to the furnace initially, the installers assumed it was some of the wiring they had done, and started investigating there. It wasn't until last that they thought to check the breaker, which after 11 years on, had given up the ghost when switched off for the first time! Four of the five guys who've been out to the house I wouldn't mind having a beer with. And I understand work taking longer than estimated: It sometimes happens to me in my job; I'll think that it will only take a day or a week to fix some problem in the software, and then the time will be up and the software will not run due to some interactions that weren't visible initially. Again, the professionalism they exhibit: There have been no excuses, no complaining, no "you didn't specify that" from them. Just attempts to get it done. So, I have a rough time working up much anger (frustration and disappointment is closer to what I feel.) It has been a little strange living without hot water since Wednesday, kind of like camping (but in my own house!)
No, I'll not name the company at this time. Yesterday, they still were working to earn my satisfaction and referral to neighbors and friends. I see that as a leverage point during the negotiations for what I'll finally pay and what additional guarantees I'll get - no sense bad-mouthing them. I'm going to give them that I'm just one of the unlucky 5% who has to endure mix-ups and defective products during what should otherwise be just a big job.
Then again, perhaps I'm caught as the principle in an old Jerry Lewis' movie or a Lemony Snicket novel - help! Let me out of here! (Oh, and do you mind if I stop by for a shower?)
Sunday, December 19, 2010
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Senate Spending Bill Loaded with Earmarks?
According to the Bloomberg report on the $1.2 Trillion Senate Omnibus Spending bill, it is a monstrosity loaded with spending earmarks. Senate Republicans are indicating that they will vote to kill the bill, a “porked-up monstrosity [who's supporters] would forfeit any claim to fiscal responsibility and economic conservatism”.
So, just what constitutes a 'loaded' or 'packed' spending bill? Well, reading a little deeper, it means that more than 88 of the 100 Senators have obtained earmarks for their projects. Which means that at least 29 of the Republicans now vowing to kill the bill worked to gain earmarks for their pet projects! (I'm not picking on Republicans per se here, I'm not so naive as to believe Democrats have never pulled this same tactic.) What a win-win for them: They can posture that they are fiscally conservative, denounce the earmarking practice, but just in the off-chance that the bill succeeds, their home state gets some dough, and they can go home, and in a political two-face, tell their constituents about how much money they brought home to them to create jobs!
And, how much money are we talking here? What does 'porked-up' mean? Well, it means that the bill contains....wait for it.....
....wait for it....
$8 billion dollars in earmarks!
Stop. The entire bill is $1200 billion dollars. That means that without the earmarks, it would still be roughly $1200 billion dollars. $8 billion comprises just 2/3rds of 1% of the total.
Wow. Definitions in DC just don't match how we define words in the rest of the country. Like porker. If you were 1% overweight, I wouldn't refer to you as a porker, I probably wouldn't even notice (you'd be, what, 1.5 lbs heavier than you should be? Maybe 2 lbs?)
Like monstrosity. As Utah Senator Bob Bennett points out, the earmarks (300 pages of the 1294 page document), by indicating where some money is to go, provide transparency and prevent the White House from diverting that money to its pet projects. Maybe not a best practice, but certainly far from anything monstrous.
Like Integrity. Out here, integrity means you do and say the same thing everywhere, to everyone - that you can be trusted. In DC, however, it appears that you stand up for your ideology when you can be heard and seen, all the while sneaking some extra money in for your folks back home under the pretense that...hell, we don't actually know what pretense those hacks would make! But, do you suppose that when they are congratulating themselves about the $91 million (on average) each brought home to their state, that they are admitting that they did it via the very process they claim to loathe?
Like Bias. Due to media bias towards conflict and sensationalism*, the real details of the bill, things that really matter (how much for Defense? how much for Medicaid/Medicare? How much for Federal government? How much for Education? How much for roads/bridges/infrastructure?) aren't even mentioned.
Like Honesty. Doesn't have a separate meaning to folks back home, because it is a word that has been stripped of all meaning within our governing chambers.
*Borrowed from my friend Cameron who, correctly, pointed out that the media doesn't really have a left/right bias, but is biased towards whoever is creating the most strife.
Bibliography (just in case you can't follow the link above)
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-15/trillion-dollar-bill-packed-with-earmarks-in-u-s-senate.html
So, just what constitutes a 'loaded' or 'packed' spending bill? Well, reading a little deeper, it means that more than 88 of the 100 Senators have obtained earmarks for their projects. Which means that at least 29 of the Republicans now vowing to kill the bill worked to gain earmarks for their pet projects! (I'm not picking on Republicans per se here, I'm not so naive as to believe Democrats have never pulled this same tactic.) What a win-win for them: They can posture that they are fiscally conservative, denounce the earmarking practice, but just in the off-chance that the bill succeeds, their home state gets some dough, and they can go home, and in a political two-face, tell their constituents about how much money they brought home to them to create jobs!
And, how much money are we talking here? What does 'porked-up' mean? Well, it means that the bill contains....wait for it.....
....wait for it....
$8 billion dollars in earmarks!
Stop. The entire bill is $1200 billion dollars. That means that without the earmarks, it would still be roughly $1200 billion dollars. $8 billion comprises just 2/3rds of 1% of the total.
Wow. Definitions in DC just don't match how we define words in the rest of the country. Like porker. If you were 1% overweight, I wouldn't refer to you as a porker, I probably wouldn't even notice (you'd be, what, 1.5 lbs heavier than you should be? Maybe 2 lbs?)
Like monstrosity. As Utah Senator Bob Bennett points out, the earmarks (300 pages of the 1294 page document), by indicating where some money is to go, provide transparency and prevent the White House from diverting that money to its pet projects. Maybe not a best practice, but certainly far from anything monstrous.
Like Integrity. Out here, integrity means you do and say the same thing everywhere, to everyone - that you can be trusted. In DC, however, it appears that you stand up for your ideology when you can be heard and seen, all the while sneaking some extra money in for your folks back home under the pretense that...hell, we don't actually know what pretense those hacks would make! But, do you suppose that when they are congratulating themselves about the $91 million (on average) each brought home to their state, that they are admitting that they did it via the very process they claim to loathe?
Like Bias. Due to media bias towards conflict and sensationalism*, the real details of the bill, things that really matter (how much for Defense? how much for Medicaid/Medicare? How much for Federal government? How much for Education? How much for roads/bridges/infrastructure?) aren't even mentioned.
Like Honesty. Doesn't have a separate meaning to folks back home, because it is a word that has been stripped of all meaning within our governing chambers.
*Borrowed from my friend Cameron who, correctly, pointed out that the media doesn't really have a left/right bias, but is biased towards whoever is creating the most strife.
Bibliography (just in case you can't follow the link above)
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-15/trillion-dollar-bill-packed-with-earmarks-in-u-s-senate.html
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Bias and Randomness
After discussing how bias can enter the hiring process, someone brought up this wrinkle:
Suppose, that after analyzing your success at hiring, you realize that all your interviewing and selecting doesn't actually improve your selection of new hires. In other words, you realize (as the HR manager) that statistically, you discern that in predicting who will do well, who will stay with the company, you are doing no better than if you had randomly selected the individuals for hire (and your process is certainly introducing bias).
So, you propose, that instead of an expensive personal interviewing process, you conduct a few random phone interviews (to weed out those who can pass your written test but lack the ability to actually speak with another person), and then you place all remaining candidates into a pool, and randomly select those who will receive offers from your company. You argue that, since you can't actually discern which candidates will go on to successful careers at your company, and you are certainly (although inadvertently) introducing bias against some groups, randomly selecting the candidates for hire will remove bias, and do no worse in selecting potential employees.
Is your idea feasible? Is it recommendable (i.e., there won't be negative fallout that you can't address)? Will it be acceptable to the candidates themselves? To Society?
Suppose, that after analyzing your success at hiring, you realize that all your interviewing and selecting doesn't actually improve your selection of new hires. In other words, you realize (as the HR manager) that statistically, you discern that in predicting who will do well, who will stay with the company, you are doing no better than if you had randomly selected the individuals for hire (and your process is certainly introducing bias).
So, you propose, that instead of an expensive personal interviewing process, you conduct a few random phone interviews (to weed out those who can pass your written test but lack the ability to actually speak with another person), and then you place all remaining candidates into a pool, and randomly select those who will receive offers from your company. You argue that, since you can't actually discern which candidates will go on to successful careers at your company, and you are certainly (although inadvertently) introducing bias against some groups, randomly selecting the candidates for hire will remove bias, and do no worse in selecting potential employees.
Is your idea feasible? Is it recommendable (i.e., there won't be negative fallout that you can't address)? Will it be acceptable to the candidates themselves? To Society?
Friday, December 3, 2010
Bias
From a lively lunchtime discussion:
We know, from the experiences of the Standardized Aptitude Test (SAT), commonly used for college admissions, and from the folks that develop the various IQ tests, that aptitude tests can exhibit a bias against people who come from a different ethnic or cultural background (i.e., different life experiences and emphasis) than the test creators. For reference, let's refer to this type of bias as Test Bias.
We also have experience that education is not evenly distributed (at least in America). We have experience that where schools are poor, where often minority ethnic or cultural groups reside, that the education they receive is not as effective at imparting the skills and knowledge they need to pursue the more technical and often higher paying jobs. Let's refer to this type of bias as Education Bias.
Assume that you are the head of HR for a large, national corporation. You've observed that a significant minority, comprising 25% of the population, is represented at only 5% in you company. You've gone to the effort of developing a pre-screening test that you administer to all applicants to weed out those unlikely to succeed based upon their not having the required skills and knowledge. Since you are large (over 70,000 employees), you find yourself in the position of hiring nearly 3000 new college graduates each year. After the recent such hiring, you sit back and look at the numbers.
Nearly 20% of the applicants did identify with the minority group, so the percentage of applicants was not too much lower than their representation in the population. However, you observe that only 1/2, 10% of those applicants who passed the pre-screening skills test and qualified for a personal interview where of the minority.
The question you have: Is it true that a much lower percentage of the minority group have acquired the necessary skills and knowledge to work in your business (evidence of Education Bias), or is your aptitude test biased against this group? How would you go about discerning which?
(Extra credit: After the personal interviews, you observe that only 5% of the applicants who receive offers are of the minority group. Is that further evidence of Education Bias (the minority applicants do not have the necessary skills and knowledge), or is your company reducing its minority representation through a 'personal' bias exhibited by your interviewers?)
We know, from the experiences of the Standardized Aptitude Test (SAT), commonly used for college admissions, and from the folks that develop the various IQ tests, that aptitude tests can exhibit a bias against people who come from a different ethnic or cultural background (i.e., different life experiences and emphasis) than the test creators. For reference, let's refer to this type of bias as Test Bias.
We also have experience that education is not evenly distributed (at least in America). We have experience that where schools are poor, where often minority ethnic or cultural groups reside, that the education they receive is not as effective at imparting the skills and knowledge they need to pursue the more technical and often higher paying jobs. Let's refer to this type of bias as Education Bias.
Assume that you are the head of HR for a large, national corporation. You've observed that a significant minority, comprising 25% of the population, is represented at only 5% in you company. You've gone to the effort of developing a pre-screening test that you administer to all applicants to weed out those unlikely to succeed based upon their not having the required skills and knowledge. Since you are large (over 70,000 employees), you find yourself in the position of hiring nearly 3000 new college graduates each year. After the recent such hiring, you sit back and look at the numbers.
Nearly 20% of the applicants did identify with the minority group, so the percentage of applicants was not too much lower than their representation in the population. However, you observe that only 1/2, 10% of those applicants who passed the pre-screening skills test and qualified for a personal interview where of the minority.
The question you have: Is it true that a much lower percentage of the minority group have acquired the necessary skills and knowledge to work in your business (evidence of Education Bias), or is your aptitude test biased against this group? How would you go about discerning which?
(Extra credit: After the personal interviews, you observe that only 5% of the applicants who receive offers are of the minority group. Is that further evidence of Education Bias (the minority applicants do not have the necessary skills and knowledge), or is your company reducing its minority representation through a 'personal' bias exhibited by your interviewers?)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)