4 Things You May Not Know About Mobile Banking In 2017 But Should | #CreditUnion http://bit.ly/2tFtuqn

DDoS and Your Credit Union – The Credit Union Exchange http://bit.ly/2tr9uHN My reporting

 

By Robert McGarvey

 

Twice in recent weeks I’ve been asked a question unlike any other I have heard from business travelers in the decades I’ve been involved in the field: Can my boss make me stay at a Trump hotel?

In both cases the company had scheduled a mid-sized meeting in a Trump property and, as is the norm, attendees were booked into the hotel too.

Room bookings of course figure into the price a meeting organizer pays for the meeting space.   When attendees go off property it can impact the cost of the meeting room.

Industry data show that some 34% of booking for events in the US are “outside the block,” to use the industry jargon.  

The usual reasons for booking outside the block are finding a lower rate elsewhere – which may result in a booking in the same hotel, incidentally – and also, as has happened to me many times in Las Vegas, the host hotel block has sold out. That latter reason is why I have attended many events at the Aria, but always stayed across the way at Vdara, not counted in any block.

But now we have the Trump factor and for various reasons – no need to itemize them – some people tell me they just aren’t comfortable staying in a Trump hotel.

How widespread is this? Hard to say.  The Telegraph has reported – citing data released by Democrats – that the Trump Washington DC hotel is awash in red ink.  

A Toronto Trump hotel apparently also is in a financial mess.  

In Azerbaijan, a Trump hotel project apparently has sputtered out, according to New Yorker reporting.

But what about the other US Trump hotels?

In the LA Times, reporter Hugo Martin – who noted it was unknown what impacts the Trump presidency had had on occupancy – said in a February story that third party booking sites are under increasing attacks by Trump critics who want the hotels with his name purged from the databases.

To my knowledge, no site has done so.

But – frankly – we just don’t know how the hotels in the US are doing and we aren’t likely to find out.  Trump’s company of course is private and it generally doesn’t own the hotels anyway, it manages them for a fee.  So it would not typically divulge how an individual hotel is faring.

But back to the question at hand.

There are Trump supporters of course and also those who want to  soak up a little of the Trump glitter and, for them, a stay in a Trump branded property is a quick path to showing support and experiencing Trumpness.

Can your boss make you stay there?

I am not a lawyer, nor am I an HR expert, but what I am told is that – yes – a boss can insist that you stay at a Trump hotel.

Just as companies have insisted for some time that their employees stay at hotel chain XYZ (usually due to negotiated corporate rates).  

You still don’t want to?

My advice is quietly and calmly ask your boss.  Find a nearby hotel – preferably at a lower rate – and make your case.  

Even if he/she says okay, you will still have to attend the meeting. Just sayin’.

You still don’t want to go?

There is no literature on the impacts of refusing Trump related travel. But, for most employees in most states, refusing business travel requests is an offense that can lead to firing with little opportunity for the employee to successfully challenge.

By all means if you don’t want to go, consult an employment lawyer. At least ask HR in your company.  

But don’t expect cheery news.

Just by the way,  the Washington Plaza Hotel – a personal favorite when in DC – is 1.1 miles from the Trump hotel in the District. I know where I would stay if attending a meeting in DC at Trump’s hotel. Even if I paid for the modestly priced Washington Plaza out of pocket. 

I would do likewise if I were sent to Washington DC on a business trip and booked by my client into the Trump.

Choices abound.

 

 

Sipping on success: Craft brews and #creditunions – CUInsight http://bit.ly/2sYw36i My column credit unions

 

By Robert McGarvey

 

The number of fliers who say they are satisfied with airport security procedures jumped off the page at me.  That’s because 67.7% of us told the Travel Leaders Group we are “satisfied” with airport security.

Just 14.9% said they were “unsatisfied.”

At first I thought the numbers had to be wrong – but as I thought about I decided that indeed I too am generally satisfied and I also hear a lot less grumbling among friends than I used to.

Why?

Are the processes better or has a kind of Stockholm Syndrome kicked in?

Mind you, we are not entirely thrilled with airport procedures.  27.3% grumbled about taking off shoes.  19.2 beefed about restrictions on liquids in carry-ons.

But a stunning 20.8% said they did not want to end any security procedure.

The numbers point to important changes in our mindsets.

Partly, I think, the satisfaction is because more of us benefit from TSA Pre-Check.  Four million of us now are enrolled and, per TSA, 97% of enrollees spend five minutes or less in security lines.

I usually wait longer for a latte at an airport Starbucks in the morning.

Pre- check also ends the need to remove shoes – the number one grumble –

Laptops and liquids remain in your bag. Go ahead, wear your belt.

Travel even once a month and TSA Pre is worth the money ($85 for five years; refunded to cardholders by American Express Platinum and various other premium cards).  

TSA Pre enrollees alone have to count for a lot of generally satisfied votes.

Meantime, too, at a glance TSA itself seems to be working better, more smoothly.  I just don’t hear the loud complaints about it that I used to hear.  

And all us – TSA Pre enrollees and others – seem better adjusted to the airport security queues.  Every trip a decade ago, I used to see travelers in a world of confusion when dealing with TSAs – liquids posed continuing challenges – but now I am seeing much less friction.  

Add it up and, yes, airport security seems much less draconian and hostile and time consuming than it did perhaps a decade ago.  

Lately there have been more complaints about TSA’s “enhanced pat downs” – perhaps because this appears to be new policy.

Probably we will get used to it and TSA will do it in a less annoying fashion. Give it time.

I also applaud security because – obviously – we need it.  

But a different poll result still baffles me, even after I have thought hard about it.

What I am puzzle by is our climbing satisfaction with airplanes themselves, per the recent J. D. Power North America Airline Satisfaction Survey.  That report put our satisfaction rating at 756 out of a possible 1000 points, up 30 points over the 2016 results.

Really?

Color me  a curmudgeon because airplane trips just have become unpleasant in my scoring.  Hostile staff. Hostile passengers. Too many of the latter, squeezed into too small spaces.  I see no real light at the end of this tunnel.

Or, rather, I see no light for those who don’t fly in the front of the plane.

For those of us in coach there seems no end to the miseries that await us because, plainly, the airlines are not listening and won’t as long as the ringing of their cash register drowns out our complaints.

Drive instead of flying, Or take the bus. Or Amtrak. And the carriers might get the message.

Right now they don’t take any of these alternatives as a serious business threat and why should they?

J.D. Power, incidentally, did acknowledge it had surveyed passengers before the Dr. Dao incident on United – and the extensive press coverage of similar mishaps that has followed. There’s no saying how this would have impacted the Power satisfaction survey.

One takeaway for me – because I live in Phoenix – is that I need to be flying Southwest more. It scored highest in the Power survey. United, which I fly a lot, scored much lower.  

How dumb am I?

But at least I do know how to fix this.

How to outsmart ransomware – CUInsight http://bit.ly/2s437cL #creditunion = My reporting

Credit Union Mergers: Time to Call for a Slowdown? – The Credit Union Exchange http://bit.ly/2rVvWrU

 

 

By Robert McGarvey

 

The New York Times headline momentarily made me wonder what century I was in: “Drink Up Business Travelers, the Minibar Is On The Way Out.”

I ask you: when was the last time you used a minibar?

I honestly cannot recall.  I know it was not in this century.

I also know many businesses do not reimburse for minibar purchases, at least of alcoholic beverages (and what else has anyone ever bought from a minibar?).  Hippy Hampshire College for instance specifically notes among its non reimbursable expenses “Mini-bar alcoholic refreshments.”

Lots of other universities and many, many businesses say likewise: forget claiming minibar expenses.

That’s not why I stopped buying from them by the way.  I stopped because the markups made me gasp.  A $1 beer might cost $10 and, yes, I know hoteliers tell us they lose money on minibars ad maybe they do but if I bought from them I’d be losing my own money and I can’t abide that.

But this also means that as hotels yank out minibars I won’t object.

In fact I hope they also clear away the for-sale clutter that increasingly shows up on table tops in rooms, everything from sunscreen to local nuts.  Some hotel rooms look to me like a Canal Street vendor made a hasty exit and just dumped a suitcase full of junk inside my room.

Take that junk, too, please.

Incidentally, although minibars are vanishing, hotels are putting in place mini-fridges – they are becoming “the coin of the realm,” said Joe Brancatelli, who indicated that the availability of same has shaped some of his decisions about where to stay.

That’s smart on the part of hoteliers. Many travelers now have prescription drugs they want to refrigerate. Others want a place to stash a Diet Coke and a sandwich.

Hoteliers may in fact be listening. Rooms, the NYTimes tells us, are undergoing a big redesign, said to be driven by generational changes in who travels, but it’s as much a function too of how long our trips are (they now are much shorter, a couple nights instead of maybe four).

So hotels are also getting rid of closets, in favor of hanging racks.  Okay by me.  I happen to use closets but wouldn’t mind if the stuff was in the room instead.

Where you will hear my objection is in the push to save room space by eliminating the desk.  I use a desk on every trip, often as much as four or five hours a day, handing email, writing, maybe doing a little news reading.  I don’t demand much of the desk – drawers are unnecessary and probably undesirable because I might forget something I put inside — just a flat top and a decent desk chair.

But I definitely want a desk.

And lots of wall outlets.  Lots.  Most hotels are still failing on that score.  I can’t recall the last time I did not wind up unplugging something the hotel owned to make room for my stuff.  In 2017 I should no longer have to do that. What does a power bar cost anyway?  A few dollars.

At least some hotels – finally – are addressing the inroom shortage of outlets, per a a USA Today story. So some progress is getting made.

Incidentally, the Times story does report that Marriott, the chain that had led in eliminating desks, has backtracked, mainly because their guests spoke up. More progress of a sort.

Hotel rooms, too, are shrinking.  That’s mainly because trips are shorter, but also because it’s believed that Millennial travelers will prefer to hang out in communal spaces – the lobby – than in a room.  So shrink the room is a hotelier mantra of now.

They also are getting rid of business centers because usage is way down. I know I haven’t used one in five years and really don’t trust them from a cybersecurity perspective. So I’m unlikely to change my mind..  

I also am no fan of hotel gyms and, lately, many hoteliers too are looking at ways to shrink or eliminate them.  

Add this up and it sounds like a lot of what we know about hotel rooms – especially those for business travelers – may be in flux.

And probably the most interesting point in the Times piece is that hotels, right now, are confused and undecided about exactly what to put in a room – which means that it’s up to us to speak up loudly and often about what we want and what we don’t care about.

My preferences may not be yours and that’s fine.  What matters is that we make our wants known.

Hoteliers say they are listening. Let’s see if they really are.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is It Time for an Apple Watch App? – The Credit Union Forum http://bit.ly/2qtf9i2 My reporting

 

by Robert McGarvey

 

My first reaction – possibly yours too – to the talk that Homeland Security is about to ban most electronics in flights from Europe to the US was horror. How dare they!

But as the possibility sorts out in my mind, my indifference rises.  Part of me actually thinks this may be to the good.

For our safety, maybe also our relaxation.

Keep in mind, too, that the present ban involves 10 airports in the Middle East and Africa.  The scope of the new ban – if it is enacted – seems limited to Europe. All? Just some airports? We don’t know.

The idea may in fact now be “off the table” according to the latest reporting.  If so – and if the security intel supports it – that’s fine by me.

If it still comes down though – and in a Trump universe predictability is not the norm – that too is okay by me.

Here’s the deal: the vast bulk of my personal travel for business is domestic.  The last time I took an overseas business trip was maybe five years ago.

Of course it’s selfish to say I am not impacted, so why should I care?  But there is more to my thinking.

For some years, there’s been a requirement – admittedly not often enforced – that any electronic device carried by a passenger has to be able to power on.  TSA can ask to see the device light up.  I have never been asked but I did stop bringing one elderly laptop that ran fine with a cord but the battery had passed on some time before.  It just didn’t seem worth the expense to buy a new battery so I forgot about it – until the power on requirement kicked in.

The logic behind the requirement is compelling. There’s a lot of space in the battery compartment. If there’s no battery in place that space could be put to nefarious purposes.  No argument with that thinking.

And so I supported the power on requirement and now I see why it just might make good sense to ban laptops – possibly also other bigger electronics- because we apparently don’t believe many airports have the technology and systems in place to ensure that there are no hidden explosives.

I put safety of all passengers ahead of my personal entertainment convenience.

Besides, a cellphone can entertain and inform me plenty.

Shouldn’t passengers be required to power off and on a cellphone before carrying it on? Probably.

Now, as for my dismay, my initial worry was: what will I do to fill eight to twelve hours on a European flight? And then I remembered I had done quite a few trips in the pre electronics era and had no difficulty filling time.

Just bring a book, maybe some newspapers and magazines.

Also, on phablet type cellphones – I own a Nexus 6 for instance – reading Kindle books is not uncomfortable.  I have in fact done it on quite a few flights already.

I also can handle email on the Nexus 6. No, I won’t write lengthy email but I rarely write long email anyway and at least I can still use flight time to work through (erase) a backlog.

I won’t watch movies on it, or do much web surfing, but I generally don’t do that inflight when I bring a laptop or iPad.  So no big loss to me.

I just might end up being more relaxed – working less – on long flights if I travel without a laptop in hand.

When I do the assessment I see this: there are possible risks involved in allowing electronics on board.  And if most types are banned, I can still fill my time usefully and enjoyably.

Would I be so sanguine if phones too are banned?

Initially I’d howl – but, honestly, this just takes u back to air travel circa 1980.  And in many ways it was considerably more pleasant in that era. I’ll grant that the absence of electronics had nothing to do with the higher quality of the travel.

But it was more fun to fly in 1980 and I had no gear with me.

If need be, we can go back to that era. And I personally will fly comfortably.

How about you?

FWIW, in a recent poll, four of five UK travelers said a laptop ban would not impact their willingness to fly to the US.

 

And reports have surfaced that Australia, too, is mulling a laptop ban.