The Mystery Shopping Industry is absolutely overflowing with abuse of workers / mystery shoppers by unscrupulous MSCs and their clients who habitually lie to shoppers about the amount of work required to complete an assignment and then pay them a ridiculously low amount after they have extracted the extensive work, travel, personal expenses, resources and results they require. Rarely do assignments pay the equivalent of even minimum wage at first offer, forcing many shoppers to have to hold out for bonuses and expense reimbursements -- if even given -- in many cases just to break even on a proposed assignment. Yet the value of the market intelligence delivered by mystery shoppers is quite significant to the companies who seek it but would cost those companies many times over what they currently pay shoppers as independent contractors were the companies forced to hire fully salaried and benefitted employees in-house to collect this market intelligence.

Is it time that mystery shoppers finally ORGANIZE and stand up for the value of their work so as to bring wage stability and universal fairness into this industry? While some shoppers can achieve fair pay for their work through negotiation, discerning job selection, and work efficiencies, this is not the norm for the average mystery shopping job or shopper, resulting in an industry of workers who are overworked, underpaid, threatened, used, abused, fired, and cheated with such frequency that worker turnover is the highest of any field. Just as market research is a viable profession, shouldn't mystery shopping be more of a viable full-time profession for more workers -- and could be -- if greater wage stability and worker safeguards be achieved through collective bargaining?
'

Unonization assumes an employer/employee relationship. Unless you are doing MS in Nevada, you are an independent contractor, with ZERO protection in law concerning the right to organize and bargain collectively. MSCs also have no reason, in law or in practice, to recognize any such "union."

Forum members can't even agree with each other in a simple thread. You really think you can get them to unionize? Herding cats (or the runaway llamas from Arizona) come to mind.

Hey it'n not like we work for Walmart. We choose what assignments to take and we all have the option to part ways in case the undesirable happens

I've not posted in a while and don't look at threads where people bash, bully, troll, etc. However, something got into me this morning, so here I go.

What a silly idea.

Aside from employee/contractor discussion which has been hashed to death [MS is contract status], a union would mean that elected representatives would bargain with MS companies for a "fair and reasonable" salary for work performed, plus benefits.

So let's break this down.

1) Elected representatives. There's almost no way to select a good union rep in this business. Online elections? With the thousands of MSers around and considering the geography, I would likely never meet my union rep and thus would have no way to make an informed and good decision. Online polls and profiles can be so abused and faked it's not worth it.

2) Bargain with MS companies. There are so many MS companies that it would be impossible to negotiate with them either as a whole or one by one. Even if you negotiated with one or two, to get a similar deal with other companies is inconceivable.

3) Fair and reasonable salary for work. I say, get your hands off my earnings! I'm averaging $23 / shop. Your union would likely reduce that by taking away bonus money. How would this impact my $60 show home shop? Or my 10 minute, $14 convenience store shop? Get your ideas of "fairness" off of my earnings. Also, how would this work across borders? We have higher taxes and cost of living in Canada? What about regionally?

4) Union dues & union salaries. Who pays for union reps? No thanks. They won't do this insane work for free. Come out of my pocket? No way.

5) PITA; I've worked for as a unionized employee, as a contract employee and as a full time paid employee. The unionized work was by far the worst in all aspects, including salary.

6) Enforcement. I won't join your union. Does that mean I can't MS any more?

So logistically, the thought of unionizing is not feasible. If you don't like the pay of MS, make a change that will benefit you. Don't try to force change that doesn't work.

x



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/30/2015 12:11AM by MDavisnowell.

Plus why should Mystery Shop X always have to be $Y? I might be making a special trip to do that shop, which would require more $ than when MDN did it last month because she was doing Mystery Shop Z right next door.

Suggestions for employee status or unionizing are always accompanied by a list of perceived benefits. What about the concessions we might have to make in return? You might end up making $2 an hour more while others would end up making a lot less. I don't work evening and weekends, what if working both were required under this new contract? Some shoppers don't want to go farther than a 10 mile radius. How will they feel if the negotiations result in a territory that's a 50 mile radius?

I know everyone means well but please leave me to fend for myself.

Being in the union, workers think they are protected, but it is an "illusion".... I was in the biggest union in the west for many years. When it comes to protecting you, some of that is a fallacy.

Then, you have the union workers who "ride" the rules. They call in every "Friday-their Friday" every week but as long as it they don't hit the mark, they can't be written up. They feel they have an impenetrable shield and anytime they don't like something (most times--things they should not be doing) they file a grievance.

Doing "less means more" in the union. They have a favorite saying "that's not in my union contract" when you ask them to do something.

I never took the union stance, never rode HR, never played "13 sick days and you get written up" games. But MANY do. They know how to skirt the system.

Your union you want to create, good luck. Who is going to pay the fat cats, your health benefits, rate the union dues and all the other things that come with a union. You are NOT an employee. Just sayin'....

The unionizing discussion seem to come up annually and is always subject to a lot of misunderstanding about how the industry and IC's function. It's been well established that unions are not a viable option for shoppers, but if you want to examine the reality of the protections and/or disadvantages of employee status, you need to look no further than Nevada.

Nevada shoppers are definitely more protected, may make slightly more on average and are still free to negotiate bonuses, but they are also subject to the threat of being forced to take assignments they may not want, and being terminated if they make too many mistakes. I work as both an employee and IC shopper and can definitely say that If you establish a strong working relationship with a MSC, you probably have a lot more power for negotiations than you would as an employee. Employee status would most likely protect the lesser qualified shoppers....

I've always felt unions are there only to protect the incompetent. Good, competent workers don't need someone to negotiate on their behalf. Employers, clients are glad to have them. I've only had one time in my life when I asked for a raise I didn't get -- because I knew I was worth more than I was asking and I was also willing to quit if I didn't get it. The one time they didn't give me the raise I was asking for I did quit (it was a fast food job in college).

this forum is the closest thing to a union you're going to find in this industry. We teach shoppers how to be good, competent, reliable, honest shoppers. People who come here to learn will benefit from that and can make as much as they need to. People who come here to stir up trouble will go away and not even realize what they will lose in doing so.

Yes, it's nice to fantasize about having the power of unity to force clients and MSCs to pay us more and show us respect. The reality is that we may price ourselves out of the market in doing so and clients will find other ways to evaluate their employees (in house programs, hidden cameras, customer surveys -- which are already ubiquitous; I requested and got an online refund the other day and have received two requests already asking me to rate the experience).

Unions end up with a wage that reflects the value of the average worker. I don't consider myself average; why should I allow my pay to be limited to the worth of the mediocre?

Unions brought about many things we take for granted today. Before them workers had absolutely no protections and worked long hours in the most unsafe conditions for less than poverty wages.

Our reality is we have total control over our own work conditions. Dangerous weather, we don't work. Won't meet our fee, we don't work. We are our own protectors. It is the newer shopper or those for whom being assertive is difficult that tend to want the "protection" they imagine would be offered by a union or by being an employee.

Oh, absolutely regarding the origin of unions. But today, we have laws that give all the protections the unions gained.

I used to supervise 18 women, 14 of which were union clerks. I asked one of them once, "What do you get for the union dues you pay?" "We have really great insurance." "The company pays that, not the union." "Well, they pay us strike pay when we're on strike." "What is that, $100 a week?" (These clerks made about $600 a week in wages) "Well, we have great retirement benefits." "The company pays for that too. So tell me again, just what does the union actually do for you in exchange for those dues you pay every week?" Silence.

Some of those union clerks were great workers; some were nothing but troublemakers who ran to the shop steward any time they didn't get their way. But because of the union, we couldn't get rid of the troublemakers. They had the right to be obnoxious jerks. I had a couple of them that didn't "earn" half of what we paid them, but we couldn't touch them once they had been through a 3 or 4 month probation period.

It was one of the good ones who thought the union was paying for all their benefits out of the union dues. Sigh. Great worker, but not all that bright.

It may not be like this with all companies but the one I work (I am not union though) for has Teamsters and the company pays the insurance to the Teamsters and the Teamsters technically pays the insurance. Might not seem like much of a difference but you get some poorly managed locals and some of the union workers don't get much - like strike pay.

@dspeakes wrote:

Oh, absolutely regarding the origin of unions. But today, we have laws that give all the protections the unions gained.

I used to supervise 18 women, 14 of which were union clerks. I asked one of them once, "What do you get for the union dues you pay?" "We have really great insurance." "The company pays that, not the union." "Well, they pay us strike pay when we're on strike." "What is that, $100 a week?" (These clerks made about $600 a week in wages) "Well, we have great retirement benefits." "The company pays for that too. So tell me again, just what does the union actually do for you in exchange for those dues you pay every week?" Silence.

Some of those union clerks were great workers; some were nothing but troublemakers who ran to the shop steward any time they didn't get their way. But because of the union, we couldn't get rid of the troublemakers. They had the right to be obnoxious jerks. I had a couple of them that didn't "earn" half of what we paid them, but we couldn't touch them once they had been through a 3 or 4 month probation period.

It was one of the good ones who thought the union was paying for all their benefits out of the union dues. Sigh. Great worker, but not all that bright.

Actually, most unions have the "3 strikes your suspended" rule. If they write you up, they must first give you a verbal warning, then 3 written warnings. After the 3rd warning (who in their right mind needs to be reminded 3 times to not do something?) then you can be suspended, for review.

The good thing that I liked was the insurance, but the UNION did NOT pay your insurance premium, the HOTEL paid your insurance premiums. The union just insured with the CBA (collective bargaining agreement) that the hotels WOULD pay your benefits. The hotels seemed to be the victims in the Union House. But if they did not join the union, they were picketed and union workers would not patronize that said non-union hotel. They would picket until the hotel signed the bargaining agreement. If you, as a employee, crossed the picket line, you were labeled a "scab" and you would find your tires slashed by overzealous unionizers.

My brother was sent to picket a hotel. The union told them to lay down on the ground when the police tried to remove them from the property (and that they will likely be arrested for civil disobedience if they did) A big bus came (it was on the news) and took my brother to jail along with many other picketers.....

The union was created to protect the workers, but unless you knew how to play the union, it seems the union-savvy fared better in the union houses...

Note that the union bosses weren't out there lying on the ground and getting arrested.

Yes, we had the three writeups thing. My troublemaking clerks were also minorities. 'Nuff said? I did write up the shop steward for insubordination. All her prior managers were afraid of her. I wrote her up (she was white) and she decided to retire. The troublemakers stopped making trouble after she was gone. imagine that.

Yes, there are rules in the contract that are supposed to protect the company. The reality was certain people had to be handled with kid gloves.

After a year and a half of managing 18 women I have never had any desire to have employees ever since. And I have nothing but disgust for labor unions. I think the unions do nothing but take advantage of workers so the union management can make huge salaries with no risk to themselves and they encourage violence to get what they want. I worked a strike in Arizona when the Teamsters struck the warehouse I worked for. People who normally wouldn't harm a fly were slashing tires and breaking windows on delivery trucks, and one worker (former management, who was our best forklift operator) came across the picket lines to work, a gun was fired into his house.

No, the union (probably) didn't tell them to do those things, at least not in any way that could be proven. But a term of settlement was that the company agree not to prosecute the vandals.

Yup, I have nothing but disgust for labor unions. It's nothing but organized crime in a suit and tie.

Oh, that strike in Arizona? The union settled for management's offer. All those workers out on the picket lines for six weeks, not able to pay their bills, and it didn't gain them a thing. Even if the union had gotten what they wanted, the workers lost more in those six weeks than they would have gained in two years if the union offer had been accepted.

Union bosses remained fat and happy. Union workers were left with unpaid mortgages and credit card debt. Strike pay doesn't even buy groceries.

(I hope it's clear my disgust is for the union management, not the workers. The workers are brainwashed into believing what those union leaders tell them. And many were in the union only because they had to join (in California) or were afraid not to (in Arizona).)

If it ain't broke, leaves it alone. We choose the assignment with whatever it paying. It suppose to be a fun job.

The question was whether we should organize, not whether unions are good or bad.

Unions are both good and bad. Surprise!

Well, obviously those of us who think unions are bad will have no interest in organizing. Maybe I didn't mention that?

And that wasn't conveyed prior to politicizing the discussion?

Management: Unions are bad.

Workers: Unions are good.

This shopper: No matter whether unions are good or bad, unions won't work for mystery shopping because we are not employees and we are not eligible to unionize.

Upshot: Not about to happen.

The problem is low wages (at least as first offered on many MS jobs) combined with shoppers (oftentimes newbies) willing to perform the work for well below minimum wage. There is also the problem of MSCs grossly underestimating the amount of time (and oftentimes expense) required to train for, travel to, perform, travel back from, and report an MS job which also lowers the effective hourly wage based on the shop fee offered. The goal would be to establish a floor on wages commensurate with at least minimum wage so MS could become something of a profession (like marketing research) versus a one-off hobby that may pay a few bills but not the rent or provide an actual living (although it's still hard to make a living in America off just minimum wage, too -- but that's not the focus of this question at this time.) Again the question is what needs to be done to firm up wages at the bottom end so MS can become a more reliable and equitable source of income. Unions could be one solution although unions have their problems to be sure. This question is not really about the merits (or lack thereof) of unions but rather low wages and what to do about them. Some kind of solution might be found along the lines of collective bargaining to firm up wages along with standards established to keep MSCs from under-projecting the amount of time and expense required to perform and report an MS job. That would be an improvement over the current MS system which lacks organization and efficiency causing many MS jobs to not get filled as well as many available shoppers to not get activated, in this argument's case because of pricing (i.e. low wages.) How to make the system better functioning so that more MS jobs get filled and more shoppers get paid equitably?

@Yohan wrote:

so MS could become something of a profession (like marketing research) versus a one-off hobby that may pay a few bills but not the rent or provide an actual living

I ain't getting rich but I make a fairly good living at this.

x



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/30/2015 12:04AM by MDavisnowell.

x



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/30/2015 12:04AM by MDavisnowell.

Some people are more capable of running a business than others. It doesn't make one group better than another, it just makes us all different. If a shopper finds they can't negotiate because it makes them feel uncomfortable or can't become efficient enough to get a route to make money there is no shame in that. There are other opportunities they can and should take advantage of.