This article was published in the April 2009 issue of The Mension, "The Newsletter of Mid-America Mensa".

The latest example in my life of how large, bureaucratic corporate organizations exhibit behaviors both counter-productive and oppressive, simultaneously, has been my dealings with what has become a household conundrum across our modern society: the communications empire.

I'll try to express this succinctly. In December, I decided my life would be so much better if I obtained one of those fabulously-appointed new cell phones which do a little bit of everything. To my good fortune, the purveyor of connectivity with which I was currently engaged was the wireless vendor of choice for this essential device.

I already had a contractual agreement with this enterprise, so I would have to make arrangements to change that agreement to accommodate my wishes. Since, by doing this, my phone company would end up making more money, I reasoned it would be relatively simple.

That's all the proof you need of how very naive I can be. After a large number of attempts to speak to "the right person", to explain everything, to persuade and cajole, over the course of more than two months of start-and-stop discussions, my telecommunications company contacted me to tell me that the decision had been made: they would not accommodate my wishes (which involved them waiving my early termination fee). He was able to elaborate little. It didn't really matter. A decision, after all, is a decision. Especially when, as this one was, it is made at the vice president level.

Despite the logic of my argument, the evidence of which was pretty compelling, this corporate behemoth could not find it within their capabilities to waive this fee. Of course, as a matter of principle, I was not going to budge either. In this titanic faceoff, neither party would blink.

After more than two months, the initial impulse of wanting a new electronic trinket had worn off a bit. Consequently, I didn't care that much whether I actually got the cool device by this point, on my terms or not. I was more interested in how dealing with this corporate giant would work out in my case. After all, this was a corporation which had found it within their interests to violate the U.S. Constitution and cooperate with a lawless edict from an administration spying on its own innocent people, despite the obvious (and less obvious) criminal and public relations ramifications. Would they not make a simple decision to waive a fee in the interest of greater current and future revenues from one of their existing customers? In the end, I was given the name and contact information of a corporate media relations spokesperson (as I had volunteered that I was considering writing an article about my saga).

In the course of my interactions with my telecommunications company, I pointed out that, not only was it going to mean they would make more money from me if they proceeded the way I proposed, but that it was the fiduciary responsibility of a corporation to behave in this very manner, so as to maximize profits. Furthermore, I pointed out that other telecommunications companies were offering to pay the very early termination fee I was proposing they waive, in order to lure my business. Does it not make sense for a corporation to retain its customer base?

I traded e-mail messages with the media relations spokesperson. In her polite way, she shared a few PR platitudes about how her employer was in favor of sunshine and happiness, two chickens in every pot, cheerful, fresh-scrubbed children, and puppies. But nothing of substance as to why this company would willingly choose such a wrong-headed direction in this case.

Really, the problem is me. It is ridiculous for me to expect a giant corporation to behave in a manner which can be construed as sensible. I'm not sure when I will learn. Unless they are guided by the most enlightened executives (and sometimes not even then), they will behave, in the description of the film "The Corporation" (www.thecorporation.com ) as psychopaths (for example: Corporations are irresponsible because, in an attempt to satisfy their own goals, they put everybody else at risk; corporations try to manipulate everything, including public opinion; corporations are grandiose, always insisting that they're 'number one, the best, etc.'; and corporations refuse to accept responsibility for their own actions, and are unable to feel remorse).

During the meltdown of the U.S. banking system in 2008, it was said that some institutions were "too big to fail". Responding to this, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders remarked that "if a company is too big to fail, it is too big to exist". That logic came to mind as I dealt with my telecommunications company. Nobody has yet argued that this company is too big to fail, primarily because the telecommunications giants are mostly still profitable. It is just that, when a corporation is too big to make a decision which makes sense for all parties, when it becomes such a bureaucratic goliath that people at the working level are not empowered to make those sensible decisions, when, instead, the buck is passed up to a nameless, faceless vice president, it, too, is too big to exist.

I'm not fond of supporting, with my hard-earned money, the operations of such a non-sensical, psychopathic enterprise. Inertia and lethargy have prevented me from taking a decisive course of action. It will be very inconvenient to change internet service providers, for example. I have an e-mail address which has been mine for years. If I change my e-mail address, I'll have to notify innumerable people and other entities of that action. There will be those I forget to notify, and there will be problems. The same goes for phone and cell phone service, all of which have been bundled conveniently under their corporate umbrella. Of course, by taking this step, I'll be liberating myself from the tyranny of their imponderable, multi-page billing mess.

And I'll teach them the error of their ways. If they are capable of learning, that is. Honestly, I rather doubt it.

Really, these corporate giants, when they cease to behave in a manner which can be described as "the public good" (if they ever could), deserve to topple of their own, stupid will. That, unfortunately, ends up hurting decent, hardworking people, those employed by corporations like the giant with whom I was dealing, and their related subsidiaries. But other organizations will arise to replace the toppled giants. Many of those folks unfortunate enough to lose employment with the dinosaurs will end up gaining better employment with the upstarts.

It used to be that states would issue corporate charters for set periods, after which there would be an evaluation of whether the actions of the corporation were in the public good. If not, the charter would be revoked. That practice should resume.

This is as good a time as any to stop the merger mania of the last couple of decades, and to resume breaking up the monopolies, which do nothing good for the general public. In the meantime, we would be wise, in my opinion, to regard the logic of Senator Sanders. If a company is too big to fail (and that goes for all of the corporate entities with which we deal, from the telecommunications cartels to mega-banks to big box retail to oil giants), it is too big to exist. In this case, if it is too big to make a sensible decision, it is too big to exist. Let the giant toppling begin.