how do I know that it was, in fact, a very good report, accepted by the client and payment for service just kept by the MS company without paying me?

Lorna, were you not paid for a report and you think the company used it? I'm not saying that never happens but it's not common. I'd have to have more details to comment. If you'd like to discuss it privately, you can click on my name and you'll get a screen that will let you send me a private message. I'll answer you by private message so it won't show on this forum. If you private message me, when I answer you'll get a notice in your email that you have a private message and you'll get a link leading you to it.

@Lorna Strankman wrote:

how do I know that it was, in fact, a very good report, accepted by the client and payment for service just kept by the MS company without paying me?

There's probably no way to know for sure. You can ask the MSC what the specific issue with your report was, and see if their feedback makes you rethink your opinion that the report was very good. But if they won't tell you, or you don't think their explanation is valid, I'd suggest moving on to a MSC that is a better fit for you and the kind of reports you provide.

I will say that I had a bit of trouble understanding the thread title and your post the first couple of times I read them. There are some missed words and awkward phrasing that makes it difficult to understand. I know this is an informal internet forum and you're not likely doing the kind of proofreading you'd do on a shop report, but you might take a critical look at your report and see if the narrative flows naturally and makes sense without significant editing.

"If I deliver an unsuccessful" what? I agree with CaliGirl. Even your thread title is confusing.

Ummm, you will never know. I'm not surprised at anything. This is no better than the 9-5 work place and I know well how that works

Sorry... also confused by your post.

Ask them straight up. Then you have it in writing. No established company is going to risk legal action by stating that they are not using your report and then doing so. It's not worth it.

MrEToomey, I can't necessarily agree.

We're not privy to all of the communication which happens with clients, and sometimes one hand doesn't talk to the other. Some of the clients must surely talk to the MSCs about follow-up questions, concerns, or desired further changes or feedback on shops. When discussing a large number of shops, it would be very easy to vaguely make reference to, "Oh, we've had a few more shoppers this month leave comments about how much they like working at this particular location," or, "Our shoppers are tending to run into problems because of such-and-such a reason." Some could be cutting and pasting small details from one shop to another, either with or without other people's knowledge or consent. Quality check won't always catch this right away, and it's not like a large percentage of MSCs are going to track a shopper well after the shop was rejected and say, "Oh! Hey! Sorry about that---we really were using your shops all along. Here, accept payment!" or, "Hey, just letting you know we fired this person! They were lying about your shops." 'Established company' doesn't necessarily translate into 'all employees being honest all of the time'.

Interestingly, there apparently are certain MSCs which will go ahead and pay shoppers for any accepted shop, but deduct certain percentages of their fees for parts they can't use---this exact thing did happen to me at one point, when I had a new MSC and did two new shops for a new-to-me client on the same day. The deduction was due to minor but definite mistakes on my part (which I had volunteered to them---they might not even have been caught them if I had not been honest about them), and they subtracted a small percentage of my fee, which the contract I'd signed when I registered with them told me was what they would be doing. This seems an unusual approach in the MSC world, but it is an interesting one, as the shoppers who register with them will automatically receive a quick idea of what can or can't be used, and for what reasons. Now, have they ALWAYS been honest about this with every single shopper in every single case? I have no idea, but I like what I'm seeing so far.

Also on the subject of whether or not we get paid due to shops being accepted or not--- I sometimes wonder if some MSCs sometimes just don't occasionally disagree with a decision a client has made and secretly pay a shopper they trust out of their own pockets. I have heard of some schedulers deducting the shopper bonuses from what THEY will be paid, though I do not know or remember if I got it directly from the schedulers themselves or even know whether or not it's actually true. If it's true, perhaps the schedulers and/or the higher-ups in the MSC approve larger-scale types of things. You get some rotten people in this business, and you get some really sweet ones. That's just the way practically everything works. If you work with a company for a long time, you get a better idea of what the general value system is.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/24/2015 09:04AM by OceanGirl.

@OceanGirl wrote:

I sometimes wonder if some MSCs sometimes just don't occasionally disagree with a decision a client has made and secretly pay a shopper they trust out of their own pockets.

I would say that it's common for shoppers to get paid for reports that were either rejected or contested by clients. It's not a secret. The interaction between the MSC and their client should have nothing to do with the shopper getting paid if the shop was performed to specifications.

Some MSCs are much better at backing up shoppers and others will capitulate quickly when a client pushes back. Over time, you learn which ones are are better to work with.

As for the OP, it's certainly possible that due to a misunderstanding, an acceptable report may be rejected and the shopper not paid. I don't think it's ever done intentionally. Good communication with the MSC that contracted you is the best approach to resolving those issues.