Feb 10
28
Before I go any further, I’d like to reiterate a very important point that I failed to mention in my other two posts, a point that is already clearly positioned to the right of this web page. While I may work for Purple VRS, all of my posts, comments, and so on are of my own personal opinion. So everything on this blog, unless otherwise explicitly indicated, is unofficial content. Now, that point being made, let’s move on with the post.
Seems Kelby Brick made a vlog on the ruling last Thursday. I’m sure some of you already saw the vlog, but I’m also pretty sure many haven’t, and I thought it was a good vlog to read.
It also has come to my attention that a former employee of Purple VRS has also made a vlog about the current situation with the FCC ruling, and on how it affects Purple VRS. The former employee’s name is Damon Stump. He also used to work in customer care, and ironically enough, I happen to be working from the same cubicle he used to work in. While I do not agree with several of the points he makes, he certainly raises a few good though-provoking points. It has always been my personal policy to hear both sides, even if I’ve already picked a side. Here it is without further ado:
Some have asked me why I haven’t made a vlog myself about this current situation yet. I have three reason why I haven’t. One of my reasons is actually funny.
First reason: I prefer to write, because what I want to say is right there in black and white. It means what it means. There is no confusion on what was meant. Second reason is because I’m quite aware that I can sometimes be long-winded, or will talk about issues that the reader is already aware of. At this point, the reader is able to skim through what I wrote to something that interests the reader, without the fear that they missed something interesting. This is difficult to do with vlogs, as it’s too easy to skip too far ahead and miss something vitally important. My third, and last reason is: I’m not exactly photogenic (as in, the webcam doesn’t exactly make me look hot and sexy!). So I prefer to write. 
As always, commentaries are welcome, and will endeavor to respond.
I am glad this happen because I dislike Purple, Purple been taking MY damn money to give to Purple from my damn tax! do the damn math!
so you are saying kelby s hot n sexy!
I was surprised that my link to youtube remove… I think it will be the only solution to save…
@RJ- correction, it is not being paid for via your tax money. That money comes from the telecommunications corporations.
@Pearly- hey, let’s not go putting words where they weren’t attributed, I was speaking of myself! And besides, he does look good, doesn’t he? All sharp and businessman like. =) Now me, if I speak, people just nod, and think “Wow. This dude talks alot. Where’s my soda? And where’s the nearest exit?” =P
@Deafnet- your link was removed because it had absolutely no textual attribution, no description of the link, etc– so people would not know what to expect if they clicked on it. It was not a video, it was just a video of a still image that only contained text. If you put the text directly into the comment, you’d be accomplishing the same thing, except with one bonus; people would not have to click through just to see what your feedback was. =)
The Fund may be funded by telecom contributions, but it is still funded at the direction of the government — just like the Social Security fund is funded by employers and taxpayers at the direction of the government. So any abuse of the VRS Fund is still a defrauding of the government — as the Viable conspirators have already discovered.
In fact, the Purple arc mirrors that of Viable. First an investigation, then a freeze of payment, then a demand for repayment, then ceasing operations/bankruptcy…then…arrests? Stay tuned.
Also, Kelby’s vlog, of course, totally ignores Purple’s longtime flouting of the FCC’s rules for company profit and personal gain. Remember the Brown Bag Rewards program?
It also totally ignores the fact that he was the one who turned the FCC’s spotlight on Purple by filing that ridiculous petition last summer asking the FCC to retroactively bless their scheme of continuous deaf-to-deaf conference calls that were a major revenue generator for the company. This petition was filed directly in the wake of the Viable FBI raids and at about the same time Purple began to be investigated by the FBI, SEC and FCC. He knew, and Purple knew, that their business was built on sham revenue and the only way out was to claim that the FCC was somehow “not clear” with its rules.
And now, with Purple’s outside counsel legal budget entirely shot to hell, his strategy for saving Purple and his own job appears to be to ask you all to plead with the FCC commissioners and federal legislators to be nice to Purple because they have deaf employees.
This is not “a civil rights setback,” as Kelby claimed it was in an email to employees. This is a victory for ethical business conduct and good moral principles. VRS service to all deaf people will improve, not deteriorate, because CAs will be freed to interpret legitimate calls instead of rest calls, run calls, calls involving only deaf employees, “marketing” and “outreach” calls and other frivolous calls. Hearing people will view the industry with more respect as it conducts itself more professionally. And the industry will be better because it will attract people who want to serve, not people who just want a piece of the money pie.
The people I feel worst for are the employees – deaf and hearing – who have been used by their superiors. These people did nothing but what they were told, and they did it to save their jobs and feed their families while their superiors bought big houses, convertibles and outdoor kitchens with profits made on the backs of these poor employees. Worse yet, their superiors did all this while claiming they were fighting for the rights of the same deaf people who they have now left in the lurch.
The moral of the Purple story — and the Viable story as well — is that being deaf is not a substitute or an excuse for ethical business behavior.
You go, Don! I used to work at Purple and I know exactly what you’re talking about. You are kind of inspiring me to speak out as well – all in due time, I guess. Thanks for making the Deaf public aware of the ongoing issues in VRS industry. Hats off to you.
To Kelby:
I’m disappointed to have a Deaf “leader” like you go on record saying what you did! What kind of signal does that send? Deaf employees are more expensive? Why would having Deaf employees be a cost burden?
Let’s examine this..
YOU STATED THAT PURPLE HAS A ROBUST MANAGEMENT TEAM – CONSISTING OF DEAF / HEARING / INTERPRETERS, ETC.
If this is the case, it would allow Deaf team members to talk to one another directly, eliminating the need for interpreters. For those who interact with hearing counter parts you couldn’t use VRS anyway (it’s VRI). This leaves one to assume that the majority of staff interactions were handled through a VRS interpreter (This does little to cultivate a cooperative, healthy working environment. It is important to interact with people face to face and if my assumption is accurate – and most business was conducted via VRS – you’re really robbing your Deaf and hearing employees of these enriching opportunities)
So, where in the past your Deaf team members were revenue centers, they are now are no different than their hearing coworkers; after all, Purple is no longer allowed to USE the Deaf employees.
There is the option of texting as a form of communication for the Deaf/Hearing team members. But this wouldn’t make sense, since you’re not generating revenue over text.
YOU STATE THAT OTHER COMPANIES THAT HAVE FEWER DEAF EMPLOYEES HAVE A LOWER COST STRUCTURE.
This is silly. For those who don’t know, a company’s cost structure consists of capital expenditure, salaries and general operating expenses. A company’s cost structure is the result of decisions made by the executive management team. If Purple has a higher cost structure, it is because the decisions that were made, like the one that resulted in the incredible benefits package, we made with irrational exuberance driven by unsustainable revenue from a operating model that was illegal and wrong.
A person’s salary is going to be what it is regardless of hearing ability. Kelby, you are attempting to pigeonhole the entire Deaf team working for Purple by saying that they cause your costs structure to be higher than other companies who do not employ the same number of Deaf.
In reality Deaf people generally face fewer options in the market place because of the perceptions – like the one you’re putting forth – that Deaf are more expensive. For smaller companies, this may be defensible (mom and pop restaurants, etc), despite helping a company meet its affirmative action quotas, it can be expensive if they don’t already have interpreters on staff. But, for a company that employs the number of interpreters that Purple does, there is no excuse! The fact that providing interpreters for the weekly meetings is a tax deductible operating expense only makes your statements worse.
The fact is tax payers have been subsidizing your business for years by paying for your interpreters! It’s about time that Purple bore the full cost of running its business, and that means you have to cover costs that up until now the FCC and NECA have been paying.
Don,
Honestly, I don’t see any your points about what Purple did to their employees. All I do is watching your introduction and conclusion. I don’t see the peak of the story. I feel I wasted my time to figure out your video and it took 10 minutes and I still don’t see anything. I want to understand you but you did not say anything specifically. I know CEOs do their dirty jobs include all of companies, not just Purple. Why do you blame Purple for doing the dishonest behavior?? I believe Purple did right thing by hiring deaf and hard of hearing employee more than other VRS. Hearing people take advantage and blame us. It is not right. You should not say anything about Purple. Look at Sorenson, they do not have the deaf directors and etc. FCC should cut their salary. You mentioned about the Sorenson. It has a lot of hearing workers and still earn the money from FCC. What is wrong with Purple?? FCC does not treat deaf/hoh and hearing people equally AT ALL. We, deaf/hoh, pay the telecommunication taxes and we expect to return something to us. Why hearing people blame deaf for doing frauds??? Hearing people do stupid things but it doesn’t mean that a small innocent company needs to close because of …. no reason at all!! Therefore, we must have the same accessibility to communication and job like hearing people. Purple should not be close at all.
RJ – you don’t know the whole fact so pls refrain from accusing Purple communication! They support deaf community more than you realize and have hired more deaf employees than other VRS providers.
I don’t know what’s your beef with them but DO get your facts together before assuming!
Now I consider it a discrimination act against deaf employees making personal calls to DR, Dentist, etc using VRS while hearing employees can without consequences because they don’t use VRS. Is that fair? NOT!
@anon-
That’s assuming Purple set out to deliberately defraud. We were providing services that were not expressively prohibited at the time. Once FCC made it expressively clear to Purple that said services were prohibited, we had already begun elimination of those services, in spite of our disagreement on the necessity of such elimination. Every inquiry by FCC was met with absolute cooperation, as far as I know. Just because something becomes illegal later does not make one a criminal just because one did that something in the past.
Take prohibition– remember when alcohol was illegal? Well, prior to the prohibition, it was okay to drink. Once it became illegal, did it become retroactive? Did it apply to everyone who even drank once, even if they had stopped and no longer used it? The logistics of pursuing that would have been staggering.
It is currently the standard to not prosecute those who committed an act prior to the act being made illegal.
Of course, I should point out: illegal doesn’t always equate to wrong. But that’s a whole another philosophical/moral/legal discussion altogher, so I won’t get into that.
My point is: Purple believed what it was doing was not wrong, and also due to lack of expressive prohibition at the time, not illegal. Once FCC prohibited it expressively, Purple then halted the behavior. We believed it was not wrong, but because it was now illegal, we respected the law and ceased.
As for what went on with Viable, I cannot comment on that as I am not familiar with the in-depth details.
@Maria-
I think there was some confusion– that vlog at the bottom is by Damon Stump. I am not Damon Stump. I’m Don Cullen. I don’t do vlogs, so I’m pretty sure that isn’t me. please do re-read my blog, you’ll see I’m quite clear on who the vlogger is. Feel free to share your comment with him at http://www.youtube.com/deafthat/ . I also wholeheartedly support your comments! Thanks for your feedback!