Waxing Philadelphia For Men

pressure gauges at petrol stations REPSOL




put gas in REPSOL. Not because they are cheaper and have better fuel, I do not know. It's because one takes me close to home and I have other back from work.

few months ago, as early in the year or so, I noticed at the gas station near my house that had made a machine for supplying air to the tires. That machine worked with a € 1 coin. But I did not need to use machine or maybe I would check the tires on another site that was free. In addition, I have a wheel hichador in the attic, one of those that plug into the cigarette lighter and make a noise as hell.

Later, returning from work, I stopped at the gas station refueling on the way that I have. Recall is also REPSOL. When I was paying, I asked the operator if this machine were out (I knew of another gas station because they are equal, I guess that is the case in all of REPSOL) was in charge and I said yes (the response I expected .) Then I wondered if I was free for those who poured gasoline and I said a little sharp, not that cost € 1 and that provided air for only 5 minutes (sometimes, looking at tire pressure and correct it takes longer because you have to change a wheel to another, hose fails, etc).

Then I went to the car. But when he was about to ride on it, I turned on the vein of protest and turning to the operator's office asked for a complaint form. I explained that I wanted to complain about the abuse of REPSOL, it was nothing against him. With his dry tone that told me the complaint form had to fill there, that I could take. Respectfully discuss a bit about the fact that charged for this service had always been free and that if the price could be lower, and so on. He also said
- What if I have coins?
- I will change - quickly responded with a bullet.
- What if I have credit cards only?
- I will collect the card and give it to you in cash.
"Well, there is no escape here, I thought.

- Well, if REPSOL treats us well, we must start to get fuel to the competition, where peer pressure can free. "I said. At that time

I remembered what he had read somewhere (I think it was in the journal Traffic). That
stations were required to have air pressure available for free to customers
. And so I gave him the gas station.
Then I noticed a change in employee attitude , which until then had been a bit arrogant. I suddenly says he has a device for measuring tire pressure and had a shot of compressed air there, next to the machine to throw coins, which could plug. The air intake was so small and the big machine
that I had not realized that although compressed air nozzle, indeed, was in sight.
however, insisted that the "device" had no While no assurance measure, which in turn the coin machine was calibrated regularly, and so on. (I will not bore you summarize.) Then I said well, let me "this device", I assumed responsibility if measured wrong. By then I had explained that was a tube with a manometer and a fast connection to compressed air supply.
left his office and went to a small store that has the gas station and you will not be beyond 10 meters away from the office. I left the set, which was almost new-and used it to check and fill the wheel of my car. Pressure measurements that gave me "the device" were in line with what I usually wear on the wheels of the car, so I figured it was better than the worker told me. Then I returned and said he did not want to put a complaint form.
I had noticed that the portable gauge was not the operator (as it appeared early in their words) but of REPSOL, who had been in the hands of your staff to be better care and to comply with the rules. In addition, the mouthpiece that I used, along with soil, had almost erased a few letters that said (something like): "To use this air intake, get the gauge in the office"
. If

had placed a claim form would have to be against him, did not adequately disclose the possibility of measuring pressure free wheel and deal, however, all the time, to address to the coin machine. I can only explain that you get commission (a percentage) than that collected by the machine. If not, why is so many words to mislead?. So when I saw with the intention of writing the complaint, reversed its position because it would give me the pipe could have problems with their bosses.
By the way, I'm sure, stations have to have free compressed air users and also to gauge properly calibrated and functioning properly.
Any of these things is not met is reported to the Ministry of Industry of the Autonomous Community.


CONCLUSIONS:
1 st) The hit that I got the employee was simply not bothering to go for gauge and then resave. And because something kept in the collection of the slot machine.
2 ª) Indeed, REPSOL want to take money from users with their machines out-bitches, but they know they have to have a pressure gauge conditions for those who know their rights. The gauge has to be calibrated and enforce rules regarding work and rest.

3 rd) To request a complaint form, even if it seems useless, sometimes produces miracles.

4 th) must read articles on the rights that consumers and the obligations of companies and administrations as well, to demand our rights better and also enjoy the best of life.

5 th) If ever you shamelessly exploit whatever, let them clear that next time you go to the competition (and do). Sometimes you will discover that the competition is better in other things.

Cheaters Korian Movie Online

The European Court confirms fine VISA EU

Justice ratifies EU fine of 10.2 million Visa not to admit Morgan Stanley as a member

Thursday April 14, 2011

BRUSSELS, 14 (EUROPA PRESS)

The General Court of the European Union (TEU) confirmed on Thursday that 10.2 million fine euros the Commission imposed on the credit card company Visa in 2007 for not admitting as a member of its network to U.S. bank Morgan Stanley between March 2000 and September 2006. Visa

argued that its rules stipulated that the network would not accept as a member to any candidate who was considered by the board as a possible rival. Morgan Stanley provided its own network of U.S. credit cards, Discover, but without the presence of the EU.

But the EU executive fined Visa on the grounds that its refusal to admit Morgan Stanley had no objective justification and restricted competition in the supply of credit card services to merchants in the UK. Visa

appealed the fine before the General Court of the EU, which on Wednesday has dismissed all its claims and has ratified the decision in Brussels. ------------------------------------


COMMENT:

I do not know if I sin of ignorance, I do not understand this news. Or rather, do not understand the decision of the Commission or the Court. Let me explain: I find logical reasoning VISA, not wanting to associate with a bank that has its own credit cards, but do not operate in Europe. The most logical is that a society only serves as a springboard for the bank to get themselves known, place their cards and gain a foothold in the market, entering into competition with the host company, ie, VISA. This could be a way to avoid near-monopoly of Visa in the EU, but I do not punishable. The Commission should seek other ways to improve the competence of other cards from the VISA. Why does anyone have to provide facilities to the competition?. I think not.

Bells Palsy And Hpv Vaccine

fine Procter & Gamble and Unilever by fixing prices on detergents.

Source: Associated Press

For GABRIELE Steinhauser - Wednesday April 13, 2011

The European Union regulators on Wednesday fined a company Procter & Gamble and Unilever for a total of 315.2 million euros (456 million dollars) for pricing a detergent powder along with Henkel in eight countries of the continental bloc.

Henkel AG, Germany, escaped a fine because he denounced the maneuver.

Procter & Gamble Co., based in the United States should pay 211.2 million euros (306 million dollars) and Unilever NV, the British-Dutch company, was fined 104 million euros (150 million dollars .) Both companies were reduced their fines because they agreed to settle the case with the Commission and cooperated with the investigation.

The three firms are the main producers of washing powder in Europe, the Commission said. Unilever produces detergents such as OMO and Radiant, Procter & Gamble produces Ariel and Tide, and Henkel's Persil brand owner. In the United Kingdom and Ireland, Persil is sold by Unilever.

The cartel began when companies met to determine how to reduce packaging costs, "Commissioner of Competition of the European Union, Joaquin Almunia.

"seize this environmental initiative to agree to their presence in the market and not reduce prices but the packaging were smaller, "said Almunia.

The cartel lasted from January 2002 to March 2005 and covered Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain and the Netherlands, the Commission said.
------ -------------------------------------------------- ------
[News expanded and from another source:]

Source: CONSUMER.es Eroski - Thursday April 14, 2011

The European Commission (EC) has imposed a fine of 315.2 million to multinationals Unilever and Procter and Gamble for bargain prices and market share of detergents in washing powder in eight countries of the European Union (EU), including Spain. The German company Henkel will face no sanction, to be the first to denounce in Brussels to the cartel, which lasted three years. The three companies mentioned are the main producers of detergent powder in Europe.

Procter and Gamble will pay 211.2 million euros, while the fine for Unilever to 104 million euros. The sanctions against the two companies include a discount of 10% for recognizing the facts and have contributed to a rapid conclusion of the investigation. Also other reductions have been implemented through collaboration with the investigations.

"By recognizing their participation in the cartel, the companies have enabled the EC quickly closed their investigation and have benefited from a reduction of the fine, "said vice president of the European Commission responsible for competition, Joaquín Almunia." However, there should be no illusions about the determination of the EC to address the issue vigorous anti-cartel which impose higher prices on consumers who pay in the context of a healthy and fair competition, "he said.

The EU executive has evidence that the cartel existed at least from January 7 2002 to March 8, 2005. The illegal agreement began when the company launched an initiative coordinated by the organization that represents professional, to improve the environmental performance of detergents. "The environmental objective did not require them to coordinate prices or resort to other anti-competitive practices," they said from Brussels.

addition to Spain, the illegal agreement covering Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Portugal and the Netherlands. The amount of the fine is calculated based on sales of businesses in the eight affected countries, the "extreme gravity" of the offense and the high combined market share of the parties.