Voodoo....I noticed a cherished board member or two in the audience

1BB, it appears that BBB did not say anything about the things that were said about answering for stories that B79 started here:

--MGM Fire
--Crew member who died
--the Monkey

Those were already under discussion before the suspension. The suspension happened and a couple of members basically said that B79 had admitted to committing fraud. Fraud is a criminal act. My opinion was that accusing someone of a crime when the specific elements of the crime are missing is wrong. More so since their was no way for B79 to say anything back.

She also stated that it was "irresponsible" and "reprehensible" of them to do that, not that they were either of those things themselves. She simply opined that their writing was trashy and not appropriate. Her language is strong; their putting crime accusations into the mix is equally so.

Ethics were mentioned and could be a legitimate discussion point. I could see that happening even with a suspended member because there is no cloak of silence around them but accusing someone of a crime goes beyond that point. I believe that is what BBB is pointing out--hey, it went to far.

Quote: rdw4potus

I think it's normal and expected for conversations to continue during suspensions. If we all wait for the suspension to end before we resume the conversation, it defeats the purpose of the suspension. Plus...you know...it's not our fault that someone broke the rules and got sent to time-out...

Conversations, yes. Making allegations of a crime? Probably should be a no go whether or not a member suspended or banned. The basis of an allegation like that should be backed with the knowledge that the elements of the crime exist. Then maybe it could be discussed.

Quote: 1BB

I disagree that the person suspended was the one being bashed. In my opinion, teliot, referred to in that long post as Eliot, was the one being bashed.

Yes, the entire post was a very long diatribe against me. That's okay, I live in California, the land of fruits and nuts, so I can take it.

Quote: teliot

Yes, the entire post was a very long diatribe against me. That's okay, I live in California, the land of fruits and nuts, so I can take it.

Good for you.

Quote: 1BB

I disagree that the person suspended was the one being bashed. In my opinion, teliot, referred to in that long post as Eliot, was the one being bashed.

Quote: teliot

Yes, the entire post was a very long diatribe against me. That's okay, I live in California, the land of fruits and nuts, so I can take it.

Nice try at deflection--BBB was clearly talking about the "fraud" comments, not the point of the original comment. If you think the first comment violated the rules, bring it up.

Quote: Kerkebet

Good for you.

Just to be clear, I am referring to myself as a "fruit or nut" here, by virtue of living in California, not any other board member. Otherwise, the words "fruit" and "nut" might be construed as directed towards those who say things against me, which is not what I intended. People who want to give me an earful deserve the opportunity to make a cogent argument.

Quote: teliot

Otherwise, the words "fruit" and "nut" might be construed as directed towards those who say things against me, which is not what I intended. People who want to give me an earful deserve the opportunity to make a cogent argument.

Best for you.

Quote: RonC

1BB, it appears that BBB did not say anything about the things that were said about answering for stories that B79 started here:

--MGM Fire
--Crew member who died
--the Monkey

Those were already under discussion before the suspension. The suspension happened and a couple of members basically said that B79 had admitted to committing fraud. Fraud is a criminal act. My opinion was that accusing someone of a crime when the specific elements of the crime are missing is wrong. More so since their was no way for B79 to say anything back.

She also stated that it was "irresponsible" and "reprehensible" of them to do that, not that they were either of those things themselves. She simply opined that their writing was trashy and not appropriate. Her language is strong; their putting crime accusations into the mix is equally so.

Ethics were mentioned and could be a legitimate discussion point. I could see that happening even with a suspended member because there is no cloak of silence around them but accusing someone of a crime goes beyond that point. I believe that is what BBB is pointing out--hey, it went to far.

I don't see anything that could be construed as an accusation but I'm not a legal expert. My point is, if a rule was broken drop the hammer. It's solved so much in the past. If no rules were broken, don't tell people to stop.

I still have questions about the MGM fire and the crew member who died, all four actually. Is it still four? I've chosen not to discuss them during Baccaratfrom79's suspension for the very reason that he can't respond.

Are administrators always on duty? Are all their actions always considered to be "official" or are there times when they are acting as just regular forum members?

Quote: 1BB

I don't see anything that could be construed as an accusation but I'm not a legal expert. My point is, if a rule was broken drop the hammer. It's solved so much in the past. If no rules were broken, don't tell people to stop.

Quote: rdw4potus

This board has a rule against illegal behavior. Does bragging about fraud violate that rule?

That looks like an accusation to me.

Quote: 1BB

I still have questions about the MGM fire and the crew member who died, all four actually. Is it still four? I've chosen not to discuss them during Baccaratfrom79's suspension for the very reason that he can't respond.

No one really said that we shouldn't discuss that. but you aren't going to get any answers from B79 while he is on vacation. You may never get any answers; all of that remains to be seen.

Quote: 1BB

Are administrators always on duty? Are all their actions always considered to be "official" or are there times when they are acting as just regular forum members?

I don't know the answer. The weight of being a greenie pretty much means to me that they should consider anything they say in criticism of a member (not a member's position on an issue) as official.

What's really nice is that you have opinions, I have opinions and we're able to discuss them respectfully without anyone getting hysterical. I'd say the forum is working just fine.

Quote: 1BB

Quote: beachbumbabs

Quote: B79

Getting back to the first part of my post here, that client I so despise, I don't turn away, I just write the 8 to 15 page invoice and bear in mind how they trim it up and what they arbitrarily cut and those things they never ever challenge. if I legitimately get say $20 to do item A and they will cut it repeatedly to $5 it's all fine. There are plenty of line items where I can legitimately increase something by say $50 whereas I would have only charged $20 otherwise. I suddenly made another $15 whereas I would never have realized that. I just take the way they act, found another way to combat that, make more money and we don't fight, they feel they got a fair shake and paid a more than fair invoice and we part friends and I look forward to the work from the clients I used to detest. (Bolding mine: bbb)

Mr. V, rdw4potus, anybody else who chimed in claiming fraud:

I think it's seriously irresponsible of you to say this based on what was posted. I don't see where B79 has said he does anything fraudulent in these billings. If what he was doing was fraud, every hospital, doctor, and dentist I've seen in the past 30 years would be behind bars. He provides a price for his services; the insurance company or whoever has a schedule of what they're willing/allowed to pay for those services, line by line. It's an accepted business negotiation among professional services; it would appear (not knowing his business) there is a range of pricing for invoice activities, and B79 bills with a knowledge of what that range might be.

I think it's especially reprehensible for you all to be trashing him while he's suspended and unable to answer back. Stop it please, now.

Forum Rule 1: "If you disagree with another forum member, politely attack the writing, not the writer".

I disagree with some things in this post and in this thread however I'm not going to attack anything or anyone. I will merely politely point out the things I disagree with.

I disagree that the person suspended was the one being bashed. In my opinion, teliot, referred to in that long post as Eliot, was the one being bashed. It's interesting, in my opinion, that "stop it please, now" did not appear at the end of that post.

I disagree that suspended members should be accommodated in any way while on suspension.

I find it troubling that a member of this site would attempt to silence other members by telling them to "stop it please, now". I find it more troubling when it is done by an administrator.

I question why this thread was started and I question it's title. I don't think it was started so we could enjoy bartenders/entertainers performing in a Latvian casino.

In my opinion, the use of the words "irresponsible" and "reprehensible" against some of our members is borderline insulting, if not outright insulting.

Whether people agree with what you wrote here or not, 1BB, I commend you for your civility.

I'm familiar with the subjects being discussed but didn't follow the invoice and MGM fire issues that closely.

Thank you so much, Greasyjohn, and thanks to all who have reached out to me.

Well, I will address this one-time and BTW---very interesting how some of you claim fraud and illegal acts. In fact, I never said anything about 'fudging' or padding or invoicing anything I never did or anything along those lines. All I said was cost-shifting and invoicing in some creative ways. I have never added line items that were not performed, period. I have a set and published price list with clients and the responsible 'spill generators', etc.

True, in my business as well anything along the likes of it, a lot is subjective and open to interpretation. The clients love to use words, 'fair & just' from beyond their desks, never having stepped foot into the field and furthermore, plenty try to adjust bills, strictly as a 'cost-cutter' and throw plenty of reasoning back at me that makes no sense whatsoever. Even when I send pictures, they seldom look at them and then call with all their debates, which are pretty much 'cookie cutter' and hold no water. Most of the time when I finally get the person on the phone and talk it out and explain the how's and the why's, must of their argument is overcome.

Most of my work is in the emergency response end of it all and most of the time continues as an emergency even with the remedial. Which, BTW---is a huge problem because lots of the clients never had this type of work and the emergency end of it is non-bid and has to be done spot-on, nights, weekends, holidays, weather problems, etc., etc. Costs are huge as well as downtime, working hours, CDL driving hours, and working conditions for employees. A total different ball game then remediating someone's underground storage tank leaks or a piece of real estate that has ground pollution problems.

Ron C., said, "Handling things in an emergency situation might have a lot more leeway in pricing". Absolutely true, 100%! It also presents many problems in billing.

In my business unlike others, we have mobilization at all hours of the day and night 24/7---365. We also have to be ready and on stand by, which means I have to pay employees to be available even if they are home, they are on call-out and can not drink or whatever and have to be in and ready within minuets. I will share something with you, it costs me $8.00 per hour to keep someone on stand-by even if they are at home.

Like heavy wreckers/tow trucks. You can hire a heavy tow truck for say $200.00 to $325.00 per hour or flat rate to tow a tractor trailer from point A to point B. But working a tractor trailer wreck a qualified and certified heavy tower might charge $325.00 an hour at a low and a high of about $750.00 per hour. For accident work you have to have multiple heavy trucks, multiple CDL drivers, multiple pieces of equipment, dump trucks, skid loaders, power clean up equipment, utility trucks, traffic control, and the list goes on. You also have a great increase in training, insurance and other concerns such as an impound lot, some jurisdictions require 24/7 office facility staffed (not an answer service), etc., etc. So all that cost more money that Uncle Joe towing your truck with his heavy wrecker. The same in my case. And, here is the real kicker in the towing guys case and my case. If the person, trucker or company is indigent without sufficient insurance, we eat the bill. We CANNOT turn down a call, period! Sucks. Really really sucks. It happens also.

Same in spill clean up what I do. My invoicing is pretty much "normal" and "SOP" practiced by most of the industry and with the amount of manpower, hours and equipment, it looks like overkill to the untrained eye. But let's take an example of an invoice landing on a desk of a suit and tie executive in charge.

Disposals (the waste stream). Company A certifies their waste stream completed and bills out about $900.00 to $1,300.00 or more a barrel because of incineration. Company B certified their waste stream completed at $500.00-$600.00 a barrel for the same incineration.

Could Company A be over charging? Could company B be losing profit? Because Company A charges more than Company is it fraudulent?? Is it a rip-off??

Maybe Company A has larger costs due to no disposal facility in his state and has enormous transportation charges? Maybe Company B does not mark-up disposals or does much more volume and gets huge discounts and passes them along? Maybe the disposal facility is 5 miles away from company B? No telling to the untrained eye and all any executive wants to do is cut costs and cry foul. The list goes on.

There is another huge factor that effects costs and some companies understand and some don't and cry foul. Here is the best example. Company A and Company B are using the exact same disposal company for the waste stream. Company A is 'high-line and quite anal' about the way they handle the disposals. They actually send a supervisor that is qualified along with the disposals and witness it being properly disposed of by the disposal facility. The proper way-takes time, additional paperwork, costs extra and might be challenged by the less experienced. Nothing against the facility but the bottom line is , the person that spill the product is 100% responsible for that waste stream all the way through to disposal and including-disposal! So if something happens to the waste stream, it isn't pretty. Now, Company B send in the waste stream to the same disposal facility and gets the Receiving Report signed and then forgets about it. If (happens before in Pennsylvania with criminal charges to the disposal company and spill clean up contractor) say-commits illegal acts and improbably disposes of the waste stream. The client is still responsible where ever that waste stream ends up or if the disposal facility didn't handle it right. All that correct handling costs money. That is why Company A charges $900.00 to $1,300.00 possibly up to $2,000.00 a barrel to dispose of the waste stream. So, Company A overcharges???

As far as what was misinterpreted before. I said, maybe I bill out an item for say $5.00 and the client normally gets a preferred contractor or their regular guy they call that chooses to bill them say, $2.00 for that item. Then all of a sudden I overcharge by at least $3.00. I don't want to fight or argue with a client. So, now---unlike before---I usually find an item or two or three or more--that I bill out less than others and I adjust that item to what they charge. I am NOT inflating, padding, lying or defrauding anyone for doing anything illegal or immoral. What is comical, plenty of people in the ivory office towers have no clue as to whether or not their own regular contracted environmental clean up company or factor service is really their best bet, but they believe in the and use them and thereby gauge ever other companies invoices against them.

So a company say in a large metro area doing construction projects, remediation of underground storage tanks and other easy and non-emergency projects, can and will work cheaper than me at most times. BUT, they cannot respond to 4 or more major interstates and several states that I serve in the same manner, fashion and speed I can. Can't be done. I can do it, nights, weekends, holidays and virtually anytime in any weather with certified and qualified employees. I can lay traffic control, heavy equipment, power equipment, vac trucks, excavators, and numerous pieces of specialized equipment and machines. I stock hundreds of specialized sorbents and absorbents all readily available and deployable in minuets. Comparing me to another commercial environmental business can't be done. But the insurance and trucking companies still try and they try their best.

Labor rates for auto and truck mechanics come to mind. One guy charges $95.00/Hr., and another charges $135.00/Hr. One guy takes 20 min's to fix something and another guy takes 2.5 hours. Happens all the time. Doesn't mean either one is fraudulent or illegal. Maybe the guy with the $95.00 rate has less over head and is a one or two guy shop without modern day diagnostic expensive equipment. Gets the job done, most times??? Maybe, maybe not. The guy with $135.00/Hr., rate might have 7 bays and 6 mechanics and extensive diagnostic equipment. Can get you in and out. Say he fixes your problem in 20 minutes and the book called for 1.5 hours. He charges $202.50 labor, $17.50 shop EV charges and the parts at retail. Then you bring the invoice over to Uncle Bob's corner garage. He says, he could do it better, quicker, cheaper and faster. Might be true and might not be true. Maybe Uncle Bob's (fictitious name) is only a parts changer and not a mechanic?? What's that? A guy that changes a worn out part without finding and fixing the cause of the problem.

Comparing invoicing is tough to do. But in the post 2008 economy it is a regular bullshit event that gets worse every year. I hope I explained myself. By the way, I do work for some of the largest and most respected names in transportation as well as some state and federal agencies. Never a complaint.

Quote: Baccaratfrom79

>>>>(NOT FINISHED---STILL TYPING---PLEASE WAIT)<<<<<<

I'll wait for the ClifNotes, I don't have
time to read an encyclopedia entry.

Quote: MrV

If a vendor feels he should "legitimately" charge $20, and bills $70 because he "despises" his paying client: what does that tell you?

No doubt the insurance companies go ape over such inflated billings / monkeyshines.

I said there are plenty of times I would charge $20.00 for something and I could legitimately increase that by $50.00. That is what I said and you turned it around and did what lawyers so very well do. I DID NOT SAY WHAT YOU CLAIMED I SAID. I (DID NOT) Say I should legitimately charge only $20.00 or I could only charge $20.00 or I was governed by the letter of the law or the pricing sheet to only charge $20.00.

Your quote and argument sounds good but it is not the true quote or context of what I wrote.

Maybe not you, but lawyers in general put doubt in people's mind and then try to sway them to render a favorable outcome for the lawyer and/or his client.

Thanks for thinking the way you wrote, but it was clearly wrong, I will put the exact quote of what I said in the following post and that is the sentence you chop up and misquoted. Plain and simple.

Quote: Baccaratfrom79

There are plenty of line items where I can legitimately increase something by say $50 whereas I would have only charged $20 otherwise. .

.

THAT is what I said that you chopped up and misquoted.

And why would I do that in the billing, because like I said they arbitrarily cut things to match other's invoices. So I don't have to cut them a break with items that they regularly get charged more for by their "home boys" so to speak.

I do not and never did inflate my billing as that is what you so clearly accused me of by your insinuation.