Meet the top ten scams – #4 phishing scams – National Consumers League

/in imported/by

This is part four of our 10-part series taking a closer look at the top scams of 2012. The number four scam reported to NCL’s Fraud Center in 2012 was phishing scams. To see an overview of our complete report on the top scams of the year, visit our Web site at nclnet.org. Phishing scams clocked in at #4 on NCL’s 2013 Top Ten Scams report. These scams, come in a practically infinite number of variations, but a common theme involves a scammer getting their marks to click on malicious Web links or otherwise divulge sensitive information.

Through the installation of tracking software on a victim’s computer or getting the victim to divulge sensitive information voluntarily scammers are able to get the information they need to commit identity theft or other frauds. Phishing emails often are made to look like they come from a trusted entity, such as a bank or other financial institutions, complete with logos or other graphics that make the emails look legitimate. Warning signs of phishing scams include:

  • Requests to “verify” information (such as a social security number, a bank PIN numbers, credit card account numbers, etc.)
  • E-mails from organizations that contain misspellings and/or poor grammar
  • Calls or e-mails from organizations that threaten to close accounts
  • Links or pop-ups that direct the users to unusual websites (such as .ru, .cn or other overseas web domains)
  • E-mails that do not contain your name

To ensure that more people are not tricked by one of these scams, consumers should take the following precautions:

  • If an unsolicited email or phone call from your financial institution asks for personal information, do not reply. If you are concerned about your account, contact the financial institution directly via the phone number or website listed on your statement
  • Take precautions to keep your computer secure. This includes ensuring that your e-mail provider and/or security provider scans email for threats and scans your computer for viruses regularly.
  • Do not click on links or open attachments in emails from people you do not know
  • If you are concerned that you’ve been a victim of a phishing scam, contact your financial institutions (banks, credit cards companies, etc.) and ask them to put a fraud alert on your account. You should also contact the three major credit reporting bureaus (Equifax, Experian and TransUnion) to alert them to the possibility of unauthorized individuals attempting to take out loans in your name.

For more information on phishing, please visit https://www.phishinginfo.org/

Why Anthony Stokes should not have been removed from the transplant list – National Consumers League

/in imported/by

According to news reports today, Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta refused to put Anthony Stokes, a 15-year-old boy with an enlarged heart, on the heart transplant list due to his failures to take his medication as directed.

The doctors claimed his previous issues with non-compliance should bar him from being eligible for a new heart. What sad news coming out of Atlanta! As advocates, we believe we must educate patients that are non-adherent, not punish them. Three out of every four Americans do not take their medication as directed, making non-compliance a flimsy excuse for refusing to treat someone or eliminating their path to a potentially life-saving procedure. Non-adherence is a widespread and complicated issue that requires communication and support from doctors and healthcare providers. If the doctors feared a heart transplant would be unsuccessful because the patient didn’t take his medications properly, the onus should be on them to educate the patient as to why adherence is necessary to improve overall health results. Did his doctors take the time to ask him WHY he wasn’t taking his medication as directed? To find out more information about the importance of taking medications as directed and pledge that you will adhere please visit ScriptYourfuture.org.

The time to raise the minimum wage is now – National Consumers League

/in imported/by

By Michell K. McIntyre, Outreach Director, Labor and Worker Rights Every day we see news reports of low-wage workers going on strike for better working conditions. What we really don’t understand or are not told in those 30 to 45 second news spots is the reality facing theses workers.

When low-wage workers take the extraordinary step to go on strike they not only forfeit that day’s pay but they put themselves in their employer’s crosshairs. While the law states that retaliating against an employee who exercises their right to assemble, protest and go on strike is illegal, most employers who engage in retaliation; i.e. reducing the worker’s hours, changing the employee’s shifts, dropping their benefits or firing the employee; are never held accountable.

These workers have taken this enormous risk because life as they know it, simply can not continue. With the federal minimum wage stuck at $7.25 an hour, a single mother that works full time and has one child, lives in poverty at $15,080 (before taxes) a year. This qualifies them for food stamps because without it, they would have little left after paying rent, utilities, transportation, and health care. Even McDonald’s convoluted monthly budget planning guide assumes that workers have two jobs simultaneously and are working both nearly full-time. What’s laughable is that McDonald’s assumes that rent is $600, health care is $20 a month and that is costs nothing to feed and clothe oneself. Through their budget planning guide, they basically admit that workers can not survive on one full-time job that pays the minimum wage. So why not pay workers more? Low-wage employers, including McDonald’s and Walmart, made billions of dollars in profits in the past few years, yet instead of sharing the wealth with their employees, they pay their top executives on average $9.4 million per year – that’s over $4,517 an hour. Why not shift some of that to the low-wage employees?

American voters, consumers and small business owners want change. Seventy-three percent of likely 2012 general election voters support raising the minimum wage to $10 per hour – including 50% of Republicans and 74% of independents. Close to nine in ten consumers (87%) strongly agree or agree that the federal tipped minimum wage of $2.13 an hour should be increased. Even a majority of small business owners (67%) support raising the minimum wage. With an exceptionally small raise to $9 an hour, $3,500 would be added to the annual income of full-time low-wage workers and can be used for a year’s worth of groceries or utilities. If raised to $10.10 an hour, as those in both houses of Congress and worker advocates are calling for, then 30.3 million workers would get a raise. It’s time for a real change – we need to raise the minimum wage!

The Faces of LifeSmarts — Lois Johnson – National Consumers League

/in imported/by

Lois Johnson, the 2013 LifeSmarts Coach of the Year with LifeSmarts Program Director Lisa Hertzberg. Lois Johnson has six kids, seven grandkids, and 100’s of LifeSmarts kids. She has been coaching for 16 years, continually expanding her LifeSmarts family. Johnson has now entered her last year coaching the program.

Retirement lies ahead, but first she aims to lead Willow River High School to a seventh consecutive Minnesota state championship and a trip to Orlando for the 2014 national championship. Throughout her years participating in LifeSmarts, Johnson has had her fair share of laughs, tears, and heart palpitations. “I get really nervous during competitions,” says Johnson. “I just put my head down on the table; I can’t even look.” A few years ago, Dougie, a special education student from Willow River, a K-12 school with fewer than 500 students, enrolled in Johnson’s LifeSmarts class.

Initially, Johnson was skeptical that he could beat out many of his fellow students and earn a spot on the 5-person team, which was headed to the state competition, but through hard work and hours of studying, he did. During the competition, Johnson assumed her position—head down on the table, eyes closed— as she tried to suppress her nerves. “Suddenly everyone gasped,” said Johnson. “I looked up, it was a crucial point in the match, and Dougie had just buzzed in. He got the question right and then proceeded to get two or three more questions right. It was something from a movie, he was so excited. This little special education student was so shy, and here he was answering questions, and you could see his confidence growing. The whole experience was…” after a long pause, “life changing.”

LifeSmarts is a program designed to prepare all students, not just straight-A students, for the basics skills they need to navigate life’s pitfalls and obstacles. “The information is so practical,” Johnson explains. “You can take algebra or geometry and learn some stuff, but I tell my students I’m going to teach you things you’ll actually be using. It’s survival.” The lessons learned through the LifeSmarts curriculum will be valuable throughout life; avoiding identity theft, learning how to deal with insurance policies, and renting your first apartment. But the relationships formed in LifeSmarts can also last a lifetime. “I’m proud to be a part of the first-ever LifeSmarts wedding,” says Johnson. “One of my former LifeSmarts kids is marrying a boy from Alabama, someone she met at the LifeSmarts national competition. I was invited to the wedding, and they told me they were going to have LifeSmarts questions on every table.” At this LifeSmarts event Johnson will have no need to assume her all-to-familiar competition position. Head held high, she will proudly welcome this new addition to her LifeSmarts family.

School is almost back in session. This year, think LifeSmarts. – National Consumers League

/in imported/by

By Lee Parker, LifeSmarts program Intern
Lee Parker is a LifeSmarts intern at NCL. He will begin his junior year this fall at Tulane University, where he is pursuing degrees in Political Economy, and Legal Studies in Business. Lee has a passion for promoting consumer education and financial literacy. Lee is a member of the Tulane debate team, and is helping to launch Common Sense Action, a new youth advocacy movement fighting for generational equity.

Brace yourselves: It’s August. For kids, this means the last chances to bask in the summer air of freedom. For parents, this means an ever-closer return to the “normalcy” of the school year.  For me, it means facing the realities of being an adult for the first time: paying rent and utilities, buying furniture and other household goods for my new apartment, and beginning to sort out the rest of my life. This constitutes the college student/young adult’s version of “back-to-school shopping,” a necessary transition between summer vacation and the school year, for students of all ages. But back-to-school shopping offers a much more fruitful opportunity that is often overlooked, with benefits that will far outlast the upcoming school year. A survey conducted in July by Capital One found that, “69% of parents said they believe they are doing enough to teach their kids about personal finance and money management…yet less than half of teens (47%) say they have worked with their parents to develop a budget for spending and saving.” This discrepancy, while understandable, is very disheartening. Like many things, teenagers gain most of their personal finance knowledge from their parents. But without substantial, hands-on practice with basic issues such as budgeting for utilities, insurance and other necessities, young adults can easily be overwhelmed by these so-called “real world problems.” As I move into my first apartment this month, I must admit I’m nervous about dealing with these new responsibilities. Now more than ever, I will be using the knowledge that LifeSmarts does a spectacular job of teaching. After just over a month working with the LifeSmarts program, I can only wish I had competed in LifeSmarts back in high school. As LifeSmarts embarks on its 20th year of education young consumers, competitors and coaches alike can expect some exciting new possibilities just on the horizon. From the launch of the newly redesigned LifeSmarts website (coming later this month), to holding head-to-head competitions between teams on Google Hangout, LifeSmarts has quite the future ahead of it. But it isn’t about the future of LifeSmarts; it’s about the future of the young adults who gain so much practical knowledge from participating in LifeSmarts. Graduates who begin living independently for the first time are so much better equipped to face new responsibilities, and thrive in the new chapters of their lives to become smarter consumers, smarter citizens, and just smarter people. And I am firm believer in the mantra “knowledge is power,” in that smarter people make better people.

Meet the top ten scams – #3 fake prizes/sweepstakes/free gift scams – National Consumers League

/in imported/by

This is part three of our 10-part series taking a closer look at the top scams of 2012. The number three scam reported to NCL’s Fraud Center in 2012 was fake prizes, sweepstakes, and free gifts scams. To see an overview of our complete report on the top scams of the year, visit our Web site at nclnet.org. This year, the third most common type of scam reported to National Consumers League involved fake prizes, sweepstakes, and prizes.

These scams, which are may be advertised via phone calls, direct mail or email, generally claim that a consumer has won an a sweepstakes or other prize and must pay an upfront fee (such as fake “taxes” or “processing fee.”) The prize never materializes and the consumer lost the money spent on the “fees.” The widely reported “Jamaican Lottery Scam” is one of these types of frauds. However, this scam comes in many other variations, with scammers posing as representatives of well known sweepstakes such as Publishers Clearing House and Reader’s Digest. Consumers should look for the following red flags of possible fraud:

  • If you’re asking to pay money in order to collect winnings from a sweepstakes, lottery or other prize offering, it’s a scam
  • If you are told that you’ve won a lottery or contest you’ve never entered, it’s a scam
  • If you’re asked to wire money in order to collect winnings, it’s a scam
  • The “promoter” asks for sensitive personal information such as a credit or debit card number, Social Security Number or bank account number
  • The advertisement states that a purchase is necessary to win
  • The “promoter” guarantees that you will win if you send funds

Consumers who have responded to an advertisement for one of these fraudulent lotteries or sweepstakes or who have sent money to the scammer should expect that they will be contacted by the scammer and the scammer’s accomplices frequently with additional demands. Scammers engaged in fraudulent sweepstakes schemes have been known to use threats to extract more money from their victims or even impersonate law enforcement (and ask for additional money to set up “stings” against the scammers). Additional information on these scams is available here.

Signs of progress improving worker safety in Bangladesh – National Consumers League

/in imported/by

By Monique St. Jarre, Child Labor Policy Intern
Monique St. Jarre, is a child labor policy intern at NCL and the Child Labor Coalition and is a rising junior at Hamilton College pursuing a degree in world politics and economics. Monique is interested in human rights and international development issues. She is on the varsity Hamilton softball team and will be traveling to South Africa for the fall semester.

In the wake of the Rana Plaza factory collapse in Bangladesh in late April, the world has responded with outrage and passion. Though it has been compared to the infamous 1911 New York City Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire, the Rana Plaza collapse has a death toll almost eight times greater than the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire, and is—by far— the worst factory disaster in world history. In response to the tragedy, recent activity in Washington, D.C. has shown public support for improved worker safety, despite the difficulties of bringing it about. The popular, politically-minded cafe Busboys and Poets invited Sonia Mistry and Timothy Ryan from the Solidarity Center, to give a presentation entitled: “After Rana Plaza: Global Perspectives on Workers’ Rights” earlier this summer. The Solidarity Center, an AFL-CIO affiliate, works closely with burgeoning labor groups around the world; it also a member of the Child Labor Coalition, which is co-chaired by the National Consumers League (NCL),  Mistry and Ryan’s talk was a part of the  Bread & Roses labor speaker series that strives to make the public more aware of pressing labor issues. Mistry first laid down the facts :  4 million Bangladeshi workers are in the garment industry, which accrues $19 billion a year in revenue. Since November, Mistry said, there had been 44 factory fires in Bangladesh, on top of the more than 1,129 victims from the Rana collapse.  The building was clearly unsafe, and the owner sent the workers back into the building because he feared lost profits, said Mistry. Doors were locked, fire escapes were lacking, and fire and safety equipment was missing. What is the main lesson to draw from this disaster? It was preventable, and should never be allowed to happen again, said Mistry and Ryan, who argued that a key to avoiding such tragedies is establishing vibrant labor unions which are often able to work to mitigate unsafe factory conditions. Mistry and Ryan also urged global clothing companies to sign on to the comprehensive Bangladesh factory safety accord that has been embraced by many European companies, while being eschewed by most American retailers. In early June, the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations held a hearing to discuss what governments and companies might do to prevent more Rana disasters. Despite widespread public concern about factory safety reform, American retailers seemedless committed to making the significant safety changes embraced by European retailers. Arguments for the companies’ foot-draggingwere built on issues of legality and cost:It would be too risky and too expensive to make Bangladesh’s factories safe,and that American consumers did not want bear those costs in higher prices for clothes, suggested the retailers But are the companies right? Do Consumers care enough about factory safety to demand that factories be made safe? At the NCL, we launched the 10 cents pledge campaign to help answer those questions.  Based on financial data provided by the Workers Rights Consortium, NCL calculated that a mere 10 cents on every garment piece would generate enough money—the over $3 billion needed—to make Bangladeshi factories safe over a five-year period. Our campaign has brought media attention to factory safety and raised consumer awareness about the real costs of safety improvements, which are more viable than the companies want us to believe. Since the Ryan-Mistry presentation and the congressional hearing, a concerned Obama administration has jumped into the issue and removed GSP trade benefit status for Bangladesh. The AFL-CIO, who filed this petition in 2007, applauded this announcement while the Bangladesh government fully protested its economic implications.  Many American lawmakers and advocacy groups, however, are confident that it will serve as a strong symbol of American commitment to the idea that workers should be protected. Once the Bangladesh government takes the necessary actions and safety improvements are visible, trade benefit status will be reconsidered. Unfortunately, after saying “no” the European-retailer plan, American companies led by Walmart and the Gap have signed on to their own factory safety plan, labeled a “sham” by many groups, including the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility. This “Worker Safety Initiative” has little legal liability and seemingly no safeguards against lack of payment or commitment by the signatories. It also creates the issue of having different safety rules for different companies who often use the same factory.  American companies need to step up to the plate and sign the better accord widely embraced by European companies. You can sign a petition telling them to do just that by clicking here. It is crucial that consumers continue to be educated about these issues, and express their concerns about worker safety to Congress and the corporate world. Please consider signing NCL’s10cents campaign pledge by clicking here. We must not allow time to fog our memories of this terrible tragedy.

Dethrone the King Amendment – National Consumers League

/in imported/by

By Teresa Green, Linda Golodner Food Safety & Nutrition Fellow Over the past two months, animal welfare groups have expressed outrage over the King Amendment to the Farm Bill. Republican Representative Steve King of Iowa put forward the proposal in response to a California law that would only permit the sale of eggs from cage-free hens by 2015.

Last year, King proposed a Farm Bill amendment, which would have exempted out-of-state producers from having to meet the standards of the state in which their products sell. Now, seeing an opportunity for passage, Rep. King has introduced his bill as an amendment to the Farm Bill yet again. However, animal welfare groups are not the only ones with the right to be enraged; everyday-consumers have a stake in this, too. The provision, written in loose and ambiguous language, could ultimately lead to overturning a wide array of state laws enacted to promote food safety and ensure fair labor standards. In this aggressive assault on states’ abilities to protect and promote the health and safety of their citizens, the amendment threatens the very laws that citizens helped to enact. As a result, child labor laws might go out the window. Rules related to additives in alcohol production, rules on raw milk and arsenic in poultry-feed are also under threat. NCL has been working hard with a multi-stakeholder coalition to ensure this amendment does not make its way into the final Farm Bill.  But we need your help, too. We call on you to contact your representative and two Senators, encouraging them to reject the King Amendment and stand up for consumer protection.

The UK institutes a front of package labeling system, we hope FDA follows – National Consumers League

/in imported/by

By Teresa Green, Linda Golodner Food Safety & Nutrition Fellow Anyone who has ever been to the grocery store knows how overwhelming picking a product can be.  When there are 20 brands of peanut butter it can be difficult to choose which one to purchase.  Should you pick the one with less fat but more sugar?  What about the claims that one brand is “all natural?”  How much sodium is too much?

This understandable confusion has given rise to a proliferation of front of package (FOP) labeling systems which ostensibly present more concise information to consumers.  Unfortunately, because these systems are designed and implemented by the industry, they can often still be confusing. This is why we have, for many years, been urging the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to adopt a mandatory FOP labeling system.  In 2011, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) issued a report on the topic, recommending a system that granted foods stars based on the amounts of fat, sugar and salt they contained.  As of yet, FDA has taken no public action to implement this system.  Chronically underfunded, the agency has been overwhelmed by an expanded food safety mandate in recent years and has had to prioritize those responsibilities over labeling. The UK, on the other hand, is making inroads, having just recently introduced a system.  However, they do not mandate its use and thus estimate the voluntary regime will cover 60 percent of foods.  Still, this is certainly a step in the right direction.  A single uniform, government-issued system provides clarity and consumer demand can pressure non-compliant companies into implementing the system.  Here’s to hoping FDA takes note and moves forward with its own long-delayed regulations.

Is it good or bad that obesity is now classified as a disease? – National Consumers League

/in imported/by

By Zoe Stahl, Food and Labor Policy Intern
Last month, the American Medical Association (AMA) designated obesity a disease.  With this decision, 78 million adults and 12 million children have suddenly been categorized as having a disease.   And with this decision has come much debate: is this in fact a step forward? To provide a better understanding of the implications, here’s a list of pros and cons of AMA’s policy change:

Pros: Many wrongly consider the obese to be lazy and indulgent. Classifying obesity as a disease may help undermine these negative stereotypes by reminding the public that obesity is a chronic disease caused by a number of factors, including one’s genes and the environment.
  • Medical schools, overwhelmed by all the material they need to cover, often neglect teaching obesity prevention. AMA’s decision may spur the addition of nutrition-focused classes to schools’ curriculum, helping to enhance the ability of future doctors to address obesity.
  • This new policy may also encourage doctors to provide much-needed counseling and targeted interventions to those struggling with their weight. Prevention and intervention are especially important given that obesity correlates with certain health issues, such as hypertension, sleep apnea, heart attack, stroke and certain cancers.

Cons:

  • As a society, we often use weight as a proxy for health. However, many studies have shown that being thin does not necessarily mean being healthier. While higher weights can lead to increased risk of type 2 diabetes,  heavier women are all less likely to develop osteoporosis; this is the perfect illustration that thinner is not always better. Classifying obesity as a disease may only further our conflation of weight and health—and all the negatives that come with that falsehood like fat discrimination and an overemphasis on calorie reduction.
  • Body Mass Index (BMI), which is often used to measure and diagnose obesity, is calculated by dividing body mass by the square of height, but is  an imperfect way to measure and diagnose obesity. Though seemingly accurate, BMI fails to accurately detect obesity. An individual who is fit and muscular can have a high BMI, while an individual who is low in weight and high in body fat could be considered normal weight. This inaccurate system can lead to misdiagnosis, causing doctors to overemphasize weight at the expense of overall health.
  • Finally, some fear that this new classification will spur a new round of aggressive anti-obesity measures by the government, such as a “fat tax” on highly saturated foods. Many are concerned that the government will become more paternalistic, limiting and infringing on their personal liberty.

If some of this seems contradictory, it is. The science is, too. Nonetheless, the recent classification of obesity as a disease is an important one. By bringing attention to what many consider a public health issue, the AMA has reminded the general public of the need for continued research, efforts and education.