What are you talking about? This is the first time I have ever posted on this forum. There must be two Paula Wolfs

Paula Wolf — FYI, there's an "edit" button available for your use in case you want to expand your thoughts in your reply, instead of making multiple, unnecessary posts.

I was lost there for a minute lol....

I think Paula was responding to the responses to her post, one by one, and that's why the multiple posts/responses.

(heart)

She probably thought clicking "reply" at the bottom of a specific post would result in commenting directly to it. Now that I think of it, it would be a good option. I guess I'll take that to the meta forum.

Go, LJ.

(heart)

Paula, I'll actually cut you a bit of slack since you are new to the forum and its ebb and flow. Yet I do have to still mention that although you stated your reasons as to why you feel a certain way towards EPMS, your reasoning to post a thread entitled "EPMS ripoff, beware" just doesn't make any sense in justifying those reasons. Here is why:

1. You mention that you didn't want to be noted as an obvious shopper with the shirt & camera, so you box it up and return it to EPMS. Did you contact Robert A. for any possible instruction as to not make it obvious? Was this the primary issue, or was it just in the design of the shirt itself? As much as I would love to wear a Versace shirt, its just not in any MSC's best interests to send to a shopper when you can keep costs down in getting the Walmart special that would be under $20.

2. You mentioned that you have a problem with the ethics of taping someone without their knowledge. This brings up the most obvious questions of WHY ASK FOR THE VIDEO EQUIPMENT IN THE FIRST PLACE????? If your friend the attorney is any friend that will give you insight on law & ethics without charge, he/she will inform you that there are one and two-party consent laws in the United States, with each state having their own definition on how you can record someone with covert equipment. This knowledge has been stated in many threads within this forum, yet you can also reference this by using the subject matter of "One and Two-Party Consent Laws in the United States."

3. The title post. As aforementioned, I really don't see what EPMS did to deserve to be called a rip-off. Did you not read the guidelines about the equipment rental? I am pretty certain that it did mention the fact of having your IC agreement terminated due to non-completion, non-return of the equipment, etc. The guidelines also stated to stay in touch with your scheduler, via phone calls or emails.

Believe it or not, I do empathize with your situation, yet I also think that going as far as to call a company a rip-off when the reasons in calling it so aren't necessarily justified is going a bit too far. While you may think that I'm being judgmental (I'm really not), I am being curious as to your reasoning, since its difficult to make any correlation as to if EPMS was truly in the wrong for terminating your profile due to your stated reasons. I'm sorry, but I just can't make the distinction with your reasoning.

Paula, you weren't ripped off. You were fired. Your thread title is a lie.

I have never had an issue with EPMS and have done video shops for them. But I do agree, the shirts are ugly and too obvious. I bought my own equipment and have a nicer shirt for video shopping. I am very happy working for EPMS. I have been with them for almost 5 years and can only recommend them.

"This was not about fashion, please. It was about being obvious as a shopper and the ethics behind video taping someone without their permission."

The original post did sound like an issue with the shirt not the concept. Regardless, leasing agents do give their permission to be recorded and are well aware they will be even if they do not know exactly when.

Edited to add: I have to disagree with my friend Eric. Wales is not just in my top 5 of go-to people on video shopping, she is numero uno



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/31/2014 07:59PM by LisaSTL.

I have done quite a number of video shops for EPMS. I really like the company, and I like Robert. The shirts are hideous, however, and have always been afraid that they are a tipoff you are shopper. They are shirts you would never wear.

I don't have a problem with video shops ethically, because I am assuming that the employees are told when hired that there is a chance they will be shopped.

Are these shirts from EPMS all the same and if so, wouldn't the target start to recognize the shirt after a while, particularly if they as hideous as mentioned? Just curious.

The ones I have had have all been really outdated checked button up shirts--the kind you haven't seen since the 70-80s!

I have no issue with the fee or removal of the shopper by EPMS. The other thing the OP stated is that they completed other shops prior to this incident. While EPMS can take their fee from that payment due the shopper, they MUST pay what is owed the shopper if those shops were completed properly. If EPMS flakes on paying for good shops already completed, then they are moving into unethical territory.

I agree with you, PA Shopper. If the company is not paying for shops reported and accepted, that is not acceptable. However, I don't believe we have enough information to say that is the case. It could be the shops were done but not acceptable. Or it could be some other situation. We don't have enough to go on to really know what happened. My understanding is the OP is saying she was ripped off because she was fired after backing out of the video shop. That seems to be the crux of the complaint. Not being paid for other work seems to be an "add on" complaint and we got no details on the other work, when it was done, if it was accepted, and when payment was due.

Yz

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/02/2014 12:53AM by Mary Smith xoxoxo.

Walesmaven discussed the shirt being laundered in between uses and the colorful background and design to hide the camera. Your question, canadamommy, did not specify which comments your were questioning. Don't do the back-tracking now by saying that we over-reacted or over-thought your post!

Not to poke an angry bear but I would have to ask what made you decide to do a video shop ? Out of the four years you have shopped with them they pulled your profile over this one incident ? Hmmm.... I have to think that it had to be over more than just that because if they charged you the $75 that should have been punishment enough because you lost money. I personally have not done a video shop because I am afraid I would give away the fact that I am wearing one. After having a run in with a scheduler at the begining of the year, I have not shopped with them since as I found her to be rude, pushy and unprofessional. This was all over me attempting to get an extension on a shop due to bad weather. I was not about to risk life and limb to drive 40 miles on slick and slippery highways after a snowstorm. Needless to say I told her that I had no control over the weather but I did have control over my time and I asked to be removed from the two shops altogether as I didn't need the headache nor the hassel. So, if it means that much to you maybe you should try and find a sympathetic ear there and make an appeal. Otherwise move on and continue shopping and having fun which is what I have done because there are a lot of other companies out there.

Now with that being said can someone please give me a clue as to where Bed Bath & Beyond shops have gone ? I am having shoppers withdrawal and Christmas is right around the corner

Boy you said it. This company is not a business orientated one. The schedulers are rude and if they mess up then you have to pay for it. Stay away for sure!

Good good good. More for me.

Sisters trollin? Yep...

I wouldn't go out on slick and slippery highways to do a shop either, don't blame you a bit and applaud your decision. That said, I find that people get rude with me when my own attitude gets cranky. If I maintain a cheerful attitude and a happy disposition, I usually get that right back. Sorry you had a problem and best of luck next time if there is one.

I agree that 4 years of work definitely should have been a consideration in keeping you on. MS companies seem to ignore past performance that has been well done, thorough, and reliable. After all there is always another shopper waiting to take the place of the banned shopper. It doesn't seem to matter much that the new shopper's performance is not up to the standards of the "discard" as long as the report gets done and editors can fix it to meet the client's expectations.

State laws aside of course, I don't see a whole lot of difference ethically between shopping someone in person, shopping someone via telephone, and shopping someone on video. You don't appear to have an issue shopping someone without video then providing an objective written report on it, so why do you have an ethical dilemma when video is involved? Either way, the client is receiving feedback on how the target performed, and either way, the target is not aware that you're shopping her.

I love video shopping. I don't work with EPMS and I don't know where you are geographically, but selfishly I'm glad there's one less potential video shopper out there. }:-)

Actually, working with the staff of the traditional shops for EPMS and working with the staff for video shops is like night and day. I refuse to work on their traditional shops, not becasue of the report, but entirely becasue of the staff. The video side is like a different world; great to work with!

I have to disagree with a couple of posters about withholding pay for shops copmpleted. If a shopper is due $75 for shops recently completed and then agrees to the $75 fine if she accepts a video shop using the MSC's equipment and then fails to do the shop and/or does not promptly return the equipment (so that another shopper can get out to do a shop!) the MSC, in my opinion, can take the $75 penalty from the fees they were about to pay for other shops.

It is not at all clear from the OP that this is what happened, of course. Also, it has been so long since I purchased my own equipment that I have not seen the recent version (s) of MSC video rental agreements. Some used to require that the shopper authorize a credit card charge and then reversed the charge when the shop was done and the equipment returned. Also, BTW, the reason that few video MSCs continue to rent/loan equipment is that they lost a ton of money when equipment disappeared into very thin air.

Ethics to the left, legality to the right...much in between!

Buzz49202,

LOL. I would have to agree. I however would have to add that it is all about what you feel comfortable doing.

I like chigirl's take and wonder why someone would find a video shop less ethical than a traditional shop. My feeling is a traditional shop relies totally on my memory with the possibility of some subjectivity being included in the report. Most of us report objectively most of the time, but can we really be sure on a given day there isn't something influencing our perspective? On the other hand video leaves no doubt about what did or didn't happen. Not only will it capture any mistakes a target makes, it will capture the video shopper's mistakes which may have adversely impacted the target.

I won't discuss the shirt controversy as there's enough smugness from posters ripping you here, but EPMS should be held accountable for the non-payment of six shops. $180 or $1800, it doesn't matter. It's the principle.

Yz

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/02/2014 12:51AM by Mary Smith xoxoxo.