I just hope this constant pressure on Julie will result in payment to some. For most of us, I don't expect any payment.

This is a fraud company and will fold soon. People are too docile here to speak out. She is a liar and makes the same excuse to everyone because she does not know what else to do.

sbrahma, you are too unfair to say that people here are too docile here to speak out. You will note that there have been ongoing concerns regarding contact with this company since around October of 2010 when the phone numbers no longer worked. Since then there has been nothing but a litany of unpaid shoppers asking for contact information because they have not been paid and nobody will respond to emails. Having heard this now for a year and a half you should hardly be surprised if those of us who have heeded the warnings so are not out money find it a little difficult to get all wrought up about it. The warnings have been here, shoppers have been advised there are payment problems, the "Search" feature here will lead you to the conversations, per Steve the use of Google for Franchise Compliance brings up 'Franchise Compliance complaints' in the possible options and the owner of this forum has set up cross references to other discussions that automatically appear after the first post in the thread where a company is named.

What is your expectation? That folks take to the street and knock on every door warning folks against Franchise Compliance? As for folding . . . as long as Julie and Ralph and other outside schedulers are able to find shoppers to take this work the company will have shopper work to present to clients and pay their schedulers for but not bother paying their shoppers for. It would be a very profitable business to get paid and reimbursed for $100 to $150 jobs and never pay the shoppers . . .

Does volition have any way of maintaining a list of companies that do not pay ? There needs tp be a central respurce where shoppers can report these companies. It seems that a place like volition could refuse to post their open jobs if they receive complaints from shoppers for non-payment.

Even though the complaints have been ongoing now for about two years, there are other resources shoppers may get to first before they get the forum.

My objection is that this forum allows a person like Julie Bishop to come on here and lie and no one say anything except Vince. This topic is still alive otherwise it won't be popping up all the time.

Maybe we should just close this thread and change the name of the thread to Franchise Compliance - FRAUD company and leave it at that.

People will continue to get ripped off by this company while they become richer.

I feel ya, sbrahma ! There needs to be an organization that protects the shopper. What about the mspa ? Maybe there is a need to begin one.

Thanks frodosdojo.

This is no more about the money ... that is lost. I just hope my rant will get to Julie and maybe some of the folks here will get back their money and it will help the newcomers not to go close to this company.

I agree we need an organization which looks into this and disciples these companies. Unfortunately that is wishful thinking.

Maybe I should start a new thread - Franchise Compliance - Money lost.

You will find that Franchise Compliance is not a member of the MSPA. However Freeman is and Goodwin is and it seems to me that CheckMark was when they went through their bounced check drama and I think Orillio & Associates was. The MSPA is a promotional organization for the companies we work with, not an organization that will take action or discipline to protect shoppers.

sbrahma Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I just hope this constant pressure on Julie will
> result in payment to some. For most of us, I don't
> expect any payment.
>
> This is a fraud company and will fold soon. People
> are too docile here to speak out. She is a liar
> and makes the same excuse to everyone because she
> does not know what else to do.


I don't agree that people here are docile. Many of the long-timers here have been warning other shoppers on this forum for over a year. Most of the posters who read and post here frequently are not posting anything on the FC thread because we are not owed money from them - we have not accepted shops in well over a year, knowing that the company does not appear to be paying their shoppers.

Apparently you had already done the shop for FC before registering on the forum and starting to read, otherwise you would have known not to accept the shop with them. Your posts, and the posts of others here, will warn future shoppers of the pitfall.

SteveSoCal Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> vince; To the best of my knowledge, the two
> companies have nothing to do with each other,
> other than both being MSCs. I would be shocked if
> there was a legitimate affiliation between them.

julie bishop herself seems to be the affiliation between them. she is advertising for both companies. bad publicity for the other company to have her representing it, if you ask me. should maybe someone start a new thread about the other company saying that julie bishop of franchise compliance has represented it?

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/30/2012 11:05PM by vince.

sbrahma Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> People
> are too docile here to speak out.

i suggest that there are at least a half-dozen negative threads over the last 6 months about franchise compliance, with perhaps 100 people who have posted or thereabouts. a few have been docile, but that doesn't represent the majority.

It's hard to distinguish a lie when it comes down to a 'he said/she said' argument between a single shopper and an MSC.

Over time, when enough shoppers post a complaint and promises of payment don't come through, or the thread goes dead, it becomes apparent what the truth was. For me, I'm not sure if FC is a non-payer or just a late-payer.

I agree with the other's assessment that long-time posters have little at stake in this game because we took heed of the warnings. It's been years since I worked for FC, but I'm happy to call BS when I see it. I don't think there are forum members afraid to post for fear of never having their carpets cleaned again.

sbrahma, this same scenario has happened before with other MSCs and will happen again with another. The best and only real support system for shoppers that I have observed is this forum itself. We can warn each other about problematic companies and offer some emotional support to those who have been burned....or some advice about how to recoup money. There's no realistic way to enforce payment by any MSC, though. There are too many suckers out there hoping to get a "free" rug shampoo without using Google to check up on the company, and they will continue to do business until they have burned through the willing supply of shoppers.

vince Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> should maybe someone start a new thread about the other
> company saying that julie bishop of franchise
> compliance has represented it?

No need for another thread. I will go directly to the source and post an answer when I get one.

Steve, I would hardly characterize shoppers as suckers. I think most of us know by now there is no such thing as a free lunch or carpet shampoo as the case may be. We work for those "freebies" regardless of how it's characterized.

Furthermore, I wouldn't blame a shopper who has contracted to do work for a company and yet failed to google them prior to signing up. These things happen in real life daily - the courthouses are full of contract breach litigations.

The truth is, there is no agency to protect us or warn us. I can count on one hand the number of shopper forums that exist and are current. I don't think it's too late or impossible but I am going to do some further research.

I was not saying that all shoppers are suckers, but I do think it's foolhardy to invest time and money into a mystery shop without some basic research.

There is no agency to warn you, so as an independent businessperson, it makes sense to copy/paste a company name into Google before performing your first shop or doing business with any company. Anyone partaking in mystery shopping will have this ability since you sign up for the shops online!

The information on non-paying MSCs is clear for ANYONE to see if they just Google the company. You are a sucker if you give your time/money to anyone without 60 seconds of internet research. That's my opinion and I'm sticking with it!

I admit I did not know about this forum before I took that shop in August 2011 and got burned. But then .. I had done the same shop for them on in 2006 and got paid promptly.

Something went wrong after that I guess... my mistake. Should have know better. AT that time they were in my good books (when I took the shop).

sbrama, you are just a victim in that case. Not foolish.

I did my last shop for FC somewhere around 2006 and was also paid promptly. I crossed them off my list of possible companies when I started hearing about payment problems here.

P.S. I would also like to withdraw my suggestion that Julie apply with the MSC offering cruise shops. They are now aware of the post she made and there is, as suspected, no professional association between these two MSCs.

A few years ago after shoppers were stiffed by Hilli, Consumer Feedback, etc. I threw out the idea of retaining an attorney (or even a paralegal or collection agency) for a very modest annual fee to shoppers as a collective and on a voluntary basis. I posted this on Volition suggesting that the MSPA might be a vehicle, especially when I learned that the MSPA (or maybe it was SASSIE) hired an attorney to "Help Defend The Mystery Shopping Industry". My thoughts did not receive much interest from shoppers. I can see why. This could be complicated,involve contractual issues and step on the toes of MS companies who have stakes in the MSPA.

But I do like the idea by a previous poster suggesting that we have a centralized subject on both forums titled something like,"Companies Who Flake On Payment". That's a start,albeit small, But it could be very simple and to the point in structure.........a "One Stop Shop" for shoppers who cannot peruse every thread and can earmark this thread on their notification preferences.

I am not pissed that I was stiffed (I consider it a part of doing business). I am pissed that Julie Bishop has the audacity to come to this forum and lie and give false promises to shoppers.

I would like her to come on this forum and admit she is lying and has taken all of us for a ride. Wishful thinking I guess.

"Companies Who Flake On Payment"

I like the idea...a sticky thread. Also, the posters on that thread just state the facts. No other discussion allowed. That way, it could be more manageable and useful.

Actually, I personally have started my own spreadsheet. Whenever, I see a non paying company I just add to my list.

Yes, my spreadsheet of all of the companies I am registered with has a red highlight on those who are now defunct (by going out of business or being bought by someone else or merging), a yellow highlight on those companies I feel I need to be cautious with and an orange highlight on those companies that are in a rough spot and should be avoided until the coast is clear. More than one company has passed from yellow to orange to red. I do make notes to myself as why they are yellow or red, sometimes just copying the URL of the forum thread where the discussion about them occurred.

anakin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Companies Who Flake On Payment"
>
> I like the idea...a sticky thread. Also, the
> posters on that thread just state the facts. No
> other discussion allowed. That way, it could be
> more manageable and useful.

While I like the idea in theory, in practice it is not so easy. First of all, shoppers do not read instructions--sad but true. Have you noted how many folks post "I want jobs in My Town, My State!!" on the Job Board rather than reading the sticky instructions? Have you noted how many folks post "Who shops ____?" because they never read the Posting Guidelines? I can't imagine such a thread would be untouched except to state 'facts' objectively.

I have seen posts complaining that Service Sleuth 'refused' to pay them 'on time' for a job performed last month when the pay cycle is 90 days.

I have seen posts complaining about non-payments whether the situation was a rejected shop or a tardy payment. Of course no shopper could EVER possibly turn in an unacceptable report, after all, they follow all instructions (NOT--see comment above).

A company was purchased/merged with another company last year. This resulted in about a 10 day delay in what normally are clockwork payments. It was a one time event. Do they deserve to be listed?

A company states they pay the 15th of the month but they somehow always manage to pay between the 9th and the 12th. On the 13th someone starts screaming they haven't been paid and the shopper is in financial ruin from the delay . . .

Folks do not seem to realize there is a Purple Portal and a Blue Portal to Market Force that are, for all intents and purposes, two completely separate companies. The two companies offer different types of work and behave differently in many significant ways. Problems with one should not denigrate the other.

And then there are the 'members' who join at 8:01PM and by 8:03PM have put up their first and only post, which is lambasting a company that no one else seems to ever have a problem with. The 'member' never reappears . . .

This kind of "Official" thread would be a moderator's nightmare!

Let's keep brainstorming together. This is one idea and I still like it. It could be tweaked to accomodate everyone. Other solutions are welcomed too.

As fas setting up a site that reviews MSC's, I was thinking that individual posts would be less helpful. Maybe a simple poll or graph lines based on votes from shoppers on important issues. For example, pays on time, tedious reports, poor communication, etc. Company X may have 10 stars next to pays on time based on 10 votes from 10 different shoppers. No one would know who voted what and comments could be posted after the polls.

frodosdojo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As fas setting up a site that reviews MSC's, I was
> thinking that individual posts would be less
> helpful. Maybe a simple poll or graph lines based
> on votes from shoppers on important issues. For
> example, pays on time, tedious reports, poor
> communication, etc. Company X may have 10 stars
> next to pays on time based on 10 votes from 10
> different shoppers. No one would know who voted
> what and comments could be posted after the polls.

a type of evaluation form could be devised for each company. a different poll thread would be necessary for each company. each company would have only one thread in the entire forum with these questions in the OP.

evaluation criteria on a scale of 1-10 may be:

10 - STRONGLY AGREE
5 - NEUTRAL (NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE)
1 - STRONGLY DISAGREE

1. ARE PAYMENTS MADE PROMPTLY AND QUICKLY?
2. ARE PAYMENTS MADE IN FULL?
3. ARE GUIDELINES CLEAR AND UNDERSTANDABLE?
4. ARE SCHEDULERS COURTEOUS AND PROFESSIONAL?
5. ARE ASSIGNMENTS REPRESENTED ACCURATELY WHEN ADVERTISED?
6. ARE WEBSITES AND REPORT FORMS EASY TO USE?
7. ARE SCHEDULERS ACCESSIBLE?
8. NEXT QUESTION
9. NEXT QUESTION
10. NEXT QUESTION

please refine these questions and add more questions. i just wrote these questions quickly off the top of my head.

I still haven't gotten paid from my early December shop. I have emailed Julie a bunch of times...I am still waiting for a response. I have been nothing but polite. I understand this is not Julie's company. I appreciate Julie providing the information on the email address for the accounting department. I would really love to get paid for my shop. In all of my 10+ years of MS this is the first time I have ever had an issue like this. I sure hope everyone gets paid.

jbishop Wrote:

> Okay, now I have had enough. I have sent five
> emails to Shamit Brahma who represents himself out
> of NJ as a shopper who has not been paid. I have
> researched this case, accounting has researched
> this case, and Shamit, I really think you need to
> apologize to the readers on this forum for your
> mistruths. Julie
> Bishop

That was very unprofessional and unethical vindictive post from a scheduler to mention a shopper's name.

anakin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> jbishop Wrote:
>
> > Okay, now I have had enough. I have sent five
> > emails to Shamit Brahma who represents himself
> out
> > of NJ as a shopper who has not been paid. I
> have
> > researched this case, accounting has researched
> > this case, and Shamit, I really think you need
> to
> > apologize to the readers on this forum for your
> > mistruths. Julie
> > Bishop
>
> That was very unprofessional and unethical
> vindictive post from a scheduler to mention a
> shopper's name.

I very much agree. When a MSC employee who disagrees with the post of a shopper/forum member goes out of his/her way to post the name of that poster, it is not only unethical and unprofessional, it is an attempt at intimidation. The scheduler is attempting to intimidate not only the poster whose name was disclosed, but every other forum reader. Shame on her.

-

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/07/2012 09:27PM by vince.

JBishop - we are still waiting for our money to be paid. The wait continues ...

Julie,

You made a couple of big assumptions here and could not be more wrong. I understand normal follow up in the course of a job. I did not "neglect" to say he had called about my remodeling project because he did not call for that reason. He specifically called me to discuss my mystery shopping report which he had sitting in front of him. Sorry, but I guess that makes your response to me the one that is "nonsense."

jbishop Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>LisaSTL if a district manager has contacted
> you from the client's side, this would be because
> you were instructed to leave your REAL name and
> number (part of this shop was an in home estimate
> which would have required this to be mandatory) so
> your posts are nonsense never mind the fact you
> neglected to say that the district manager
> contacted you to ask if you had changed your mind
> about remodelling your bathroom.