Champion of consumer rights leaves the Chronicle

"Investigative business columnist" David Lazarus is headed to the LA Times.

Since coming to the Chronicle from Wired News in 1999, David Lazarus has been one of the most prolific, and influential, writers at the paper. His coverage of the energy crisis in 2001 earned him the Journalist of the Year award from the Society of Professional Journalists, Northern California chapter. He continues to butt heads with corporate executives and write stories that unambiguously take the side of consumers.

In his final column, he calls for the reawakening of a dormant consumer movement, with muckraking reporters on the corporate watchdog beat leading the charge alongside advocates.

It's a point he made repeatedly during our conversation - that the biggest difference between now and then is that the media have lost interest in consumer advocacy as both a story and a calling.

This, in turn, leaves the consumer movement to a great extent voiceless.

...Still, I attend a lot of public events and I can say with confidence that most consumers haven't given up when it comes to defending their rights. They're frustrated - that goes without saying. They often feel that companies are dedicated solely to outmaneuvering customers.

But people aren't hopeless. They just want to be treated fairly.

...There was a time when businesses believed the customer is always right. That's an exaggeration, of course, but there's a grain of truth in it. Businesses understood that if you treat customers right, they'll keep coming back.

...These days, the shareholder is always right. Businesses focus almost exclusively on placating investors by delivering steady growth quarter after quarter. And to maintain a consistently robust bottom line, many companies reduce overhead by repeatedly cutting back on service.

Lazarus said he never envisioned himself launching a "one-man consumer crusade against corporate malfeasance."

I don't think there's any mistaking that my work is fairly populist in its sentiment. The rap on what I do is that I'm anti-business -- that's what my critics like to say most often than not. I see myself more as pro-accountability. ... Corporations should be accountable. And if you're going to do something, especially if it affects thousands or millions of customers, you should be able to defend that policy...

I was excited to hear that the organization I work with (the Consumer Federation of California) recognized Lazarus with its Journalist of the Year award in 2004. This year SF Weekly named him the city's best columnist:

With the Chron's business section too often serving as a bulletin board for industry press releases, Lazarus brings a healthy dose of skepticism to the notion that corporate America knows best.

The touching farewell:

Not that long ago, my young son finally got around to asking why Daddy's picture appears in the newspaper.

"Well," I replied, "that's because I try to help people and protect them from bad guys."

My son stewed on that for a moment. His eyes lit up.

"Daddy!" he exclaimed. "You're Batman!"

I'm going to miss Gotham. But Metropolis should be fun, too.

I'll be watching for him in the LAT.

Side note: Lazarus is in very good company as a Crossroads alum.

UC's corporate bedfellows

From the LAT Blog--"Mixing Business with Government":

But now, there is more criticism over an agreement between the University of California and BP, the oil-producing giant. BP has committed to spending $500 million on alternative fuels research at UC Berkeley. Jennifer Washburn with the New America Foundation says it's a bad deal that "dispenses with numerous traditional safeguards designed to protect the university's independence. It grants BP unusual control over the institute's research agenda, makes no mention of peer review, downplays commercial conflicts of interest and contains provisions on publication that would violate UC's written policies."

"As such, the alliance would undermine the university's academic freedom, its ability to perform independent research and broadly disseminate results. And, possibly, it might undermine the public's trust. ... In short, for $500 million, the plan would allow BP, a company valued at $250 billion, to turn an academic research institute into its own profit-making subsidiary."

Schwarzenegger has done several events that have burnished BP's image as environmentally conscious. The UC agreement, announced by Schwarzenegger on Feb. 1, could provide a cautionary note as regulators begin implementing global warming legislation under AB 32. California business has a huge stake in the regulations, and just how embedded they become with government will be closely watched.

BP and Schwarzenegger are both experts at greenwashing their campaigns. But BP goes beyond the pale, doing far more environmental damage than good.

Using a respected institution like the UC as a fig leaf for its dubious projects is dangerous, blurring the divide between for-profit and public sectors. It's right up there with the UC's partnership with Bechtel to manage the nuclear weapons labs. The UC effectively lends corporations credibility and legitimacy in the public eye that they lack otherwise, and affords them greater latitude in their projects and less demand for accountability--it's all in the name of research and education, right?

Banana boating the truth

Crooks and Liars traces tainted corporate contributions after today's news that Chiquita was being fined for paying right-wing terrorists in Colombia:

"Some of the same money that went to these terrorist organizations also went to the old Swift Boaters. Very interesting indeed...Remember - if you want to support terrorism then just give to the GOP. That will make sure you get off easy if you are busted supporting terrorist organizations."

Likewise, John Perkins explained in "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" how George Bush Sr.'s Zapata Oil purchased United Fruit. It's no secret how neoliberal politicians and corporations have plundered hand in hand in Latin America--it's a symbiosis in which one simply leads the way for the other, at the detriment of local livelihoods. No amount of presidential tours or photo-ops will change that reality.

h/t BoingBoing

Eroding localism in Half Moon Bay

Battle brewing (lame pun intended--lifted from the HMBReview) over plans to replace a thriving coastside chai institution with a Peet's Coffee shop; story hits Chronicle pages.

This fight, like many of its kind being waged in towns across the country, is fundamentally about preserving localism rather than allowing corporate sprawl to stamp out economically immeasurable goods (like community and quality) in the name of higher profit margins.

Raman made projections back in 2005:

"[Chai] will hit the roof," Bechar predicts. "The manufactured kind will continue to grow because Starbucks has already set the standard. But I don't think the homemade kind will grow as fast. We don't have the patience."

-vs-

"My understanding is that Bechar has an old business model he likes to run, and we need to make upgrades,'' landlord Maher Shami said.

Janfreya Didur, who works at kindred coffee shop MCoffee (my high school afternoon hang-out), says it best--

"I don't consider it progress to have more chains come in here - and Raman makes the best chai - the truth is in the taste."

Shami underhandedly gave his application to bring in Peet's to the city council before talking to his leaser. Raman only found out when the mayor asked if he'd decided to close.

The shopping center where Raman's is located is quieter than it's been, after Albertson's closed months ago to make way for Santa Cruz based New Leaf Community Market--definitely an upgrade, from the locally-owned standpoint. Peet's, on the other hand, would be betraying its founding Berkeleyan principles if it crushes a shop with such history and a loyal local following. I suppose a chain is a chain, and they'd be positioning themselves to compete with the Starbucks across Highway 1, which rumor has it boasts the highest per capita income of any Starbucks in the state. Yes, another chain is just what the town needs.

Wal-Mart finds its conscience?!

I kid! But yes, the evil empire is, believe it or not, experimenting with ways to make its supercenters more green so that one day it might be more of a "jolly green giant" than the soulless, shit spewing, kleptomaniacal Godzilla that it's fashioned itself after thusfar.

Wal-Mart has bigger fish to fry than localized energy inefficiency. Swapping lightbulbs and recycling at a couple stores in Texas won't do anything to mend its massive crushing footprint and oppressive reshaping of the global labor market. Grist, punchy and funny as hell as always, captures the irony--"energy-efficient LED lights will illuminate the low-paid, uninsured, non-unionized Wal-Mart 'associates' on the floor below."

The high price of low cost

Robert Greenwald's next project takes on Wal-Mart. Check out the trailer here.


Also, an NYT article shows how more visionary companies like CostCo are (with any luck) shifting the Wal-Mart paradigm and leading the way to low prices at no cost to their workers.

Good wages and benefits are why Costco has extremely low rates of turnover and theft by employees, he said. And Costco's customers, who are more affluent than other warehouse store shoppers, stay loyal because they like that low prices do not come at the workers' expense. "This is not altruistic," he said. "This is good business."

It has to draw more than just the affluent though--they're clearly not among the consumers who have no choice but to shop at places that exacerbate class and economic stratification. The CostCo model has to become industry wide and affordable for all sectors of the labor market before victims of Walmartization can see results.

Wal-Mart has warped Ford's original business ideals. At the inception of the assembly line, products were priced and workers wages were set so that employees could purchase what they made. Those that work at Wal-Mart have no choice but to shop where they work, buying the lowest quality products and locking themselves into perpetual poverty. It's the far more insidious corporate reincarnation of the truck system.

The way things should be

Did some grocery shopping with the fam this morning at the Ferry Market in the city. The market's right on the water--shadowed by the Bay Bridge, with Telegraph's wild parrots presiding over the produce .
I'm not sure if it's something uniquely San Francisco (hopefully it's much greater than that), but there's always this amazing, almost palpable sense of community at the market. Everyone shows such deference to one another. Strangers interact warmly, regardless of age or background, without any underlying intolerance. Though the market is populated mostly by lefties, I think eating good food and supporting local farmers is something we can all agree on; bringing the family farm to the city is a concrete way to bridge the cultural divide. The market's also a great place to witness progressive purchasing power, with everyone buying responsibly--a great alternative to WalMartization, and a model for a sustainable future.