Opinions needed on a strange situation
Warning: For Full Access Please Log In or Create an Account (Free)
Yes, bgriffin, but the contractor had at some point paid for those supplies, even if for an earlier job. It's perfectly reasonable for the contractor to bill the customer for those materials and get reimbursement.
In this case, the OP received the value she had originally expected--the equivalent cost of her husband's and her meal. If the friend paid for the meal, and then the MSC pays again for the meal, she's received twice the value she contracted for.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/28/2017 03:27PM by BirdyC.
In this case, the OP received the value she had originally expected--the equivalent cost of her husband's and her meal. If the friend paid for the meal, and then the MSC pays again for the meal, she's received twice the value she contracted for.
I learn something new every day, but not everyday!
I've learned to never trust spell-check or my phone's auto-fill feature.
I've learned to never trust spell-check or my phone's auto-fill feature.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/28/2017 03:27PM by BirdyC.
@BirdyC wrote:
No. The OP was offered $12 as payment (compensation), and the value of the meal was offered in the form of reimbursement. Payment/fee and reimbursement aren't the same things. Having been in business for yourself in other areas, you know this! If you, e.g., farm out work to someone, you pay a fee (either set or hourly), and you reimburse him/her expenses necessary to the job. You wouldn't reimburse a cost that the contractor hadn't incurred. How could you? How could you reimburse money that wasn't paid out?
Cost occurs in many ways other than cash spent. I think that's the part that you are missing.
If a company wants to reimburse a flight and I choose to use miles instead of cash to pay for it, should I no longer be reimbursed for it? I have before.
So yes, if i had a contractor incur a non-cash expense that still fit the requirements of a reimbursable expense I absolutely would reimburse it. Why wouldn't I? They incurred the expense.
There are reasons that a body stays in motion
At the moment only demons come to mind
At the moment only demons come to mind
@BirdyC wrote:
In this case, the OP received the value she had originally expected--the equivalent cost of her husband's and her meal. If the friend paid for the meal, and then the MSC pays again for the meal, she's received twice the value she contracted for.
The friend is not paying for the meal as part of the agreement with the MSC, so within that agreement she has not received the value she contracted for.
You seem to be having difficulty separating the shop and the friend giving a gift.
There are reasons that a body stays in motion
At the moment only demons come to mind
At the moment only demons come to mind
If the MSC got a report they could use, they owe $12 and a meal reimbursement to somebody, as they AGREED. So...The MSC should/could reimburse the friend (logistics aside)
If that happens, here is what is accomplished:
1. The friend showed his willingness to be generous to the OP.
2. The OP has no social obligation to reciprocate a free meal later, back to the friend.
3. The MSC pays the $12 fee, and reimburses a meal as they AGREED to.
4. The OP enjoys a reimbursed meal, and receives a $12 fee....as AGREED.
If that happens, here is what is accomplished:
1. The friend showed his willingness to be generous to the OP.
2. The OP has no social obligation to reciprocate a free meal later, back to the friend.
3. The MSC pays the $12 fee, and reimburses a meal as they AGREED to.
4. The OP enjoys a reimbursed meal, and receives a $12 fee....as AGREED.
{wrong thread. oops.}
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/28/2017 05:06PM by Shop-et-al.
Bach is not noise, Madam. (Robert, in Two's Company)
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/28/2017 05:06PM by Shop-et-al.
There has been some digression here. As to whether a shopper should be reimbursed for a comped (by whomever) meal:
"Re-im-burse-ment. Noun. The action of repaying a person who has spent or lost money."
Shopper did not spend or lose money. Alas, time does not meet the definition.
"Re-im-burse-ment. Noun. The action of repaying a person who has spent or lost money."
Shopper did not spend or lose money. Alas, time does not meet the definition.
I'm sorry that you can't understand the logic that almost everyone else seems to understand.
There are reasons that a body stays in motion
At the moment only demons come to mind
At the moment only demons come to mind
I haven't actually counted the number of posters who see the logic one way or the other, but I would not say that almost everyone else seems to understand it in the same way.
Comp: Verb. Give (something) away free, especially as part of a promotion.
Comp: Verb. To provide free of charge.
Again, the restaurant did not comp the meal. They did not give it free of charge. They charged for it and were paid. The shopper's friend could not comp the meal, because they did not provide the meal or give it away. They only gifted the money to pay for the meal..
"Re-im-burse-ment. Noun. The action of repaying a person who has spent or lost money."
If you believe the shopper did not incur a loss when the friend double paid for the meal which was already paid for by the shopper's labor, then that's fine. But I value my own labor and my friends' gifts more highly than that. I would definitely consider it a loss.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/29/2017 12:41PM by mystery2me.
Comp: Verb. To provide free of charge.
Again, the restaurant did not comp the meal. They did not give it free of charge. They charged for it and were paid. The shopper's friend could not comp the meal, because they did not provide the meal or give it away. They only gifted the money to pay for the meal..
"Re-im-burse-ment. Noun. The action of repaying a person who has spent or lost money."
If you believe the shopper did not incur a loss when the friend double paid for the meal which was already paid for by the shopper's labor, then that's fine. But I value my own labor and my friends' gifts more highly than that. I would definitely consider it a loss.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/29/2017 12:41PM by mystery2me.
I probably would have done the same thing. In hindsight it probably would have been correct to tell the scheduler what happened and try to reschedule.
@Mert wrote:
There has been some digression here. As to whether a shopper should be reimbursed for a comped (by whomever) meal:
"Re-im-burse-ment. Noun. The action of repaying a person who has spent or lost money."
Shopper did not spend or lose money. Alas, time does not meet the definition.
Mert, I think people are confusing "reimbursement" with payment, wages, or fees. Reimbursement literally means "back in the purse." For something to be "back in," it must have been "out" at some point. And, bgriffin is correct that it doesn't have to be cash money. But, the person being reimbursed must have suffered a loss (monetary or otherwise) or a damage. Nobody here has been able to explain how this shopper has suffered a loss of any kind. She is already "whole." She didn't suffer a monetary loss, since she's not "out of pocket" for the meal. She didn't suffer a loss or damage, since she got the meal she contracted to order and receive. She can't be "reimbursed" for the expense or loss suffered by a third party, the friend who paid for the meal. The contract between the MSC and the shopper is an agreement for the shopper to order and pay for a meal, for which the shopper would be reimbursed. If the shopper doesn't pay for the meal, it's impossible for there to be a reimbursement--given the definition and intent of a reimbursement.
At this point, the shopper is in exactly the same position as she was before doing the shop. If she gets her $12 fee, she's been paid for her time, as agreed to. The fee was $12, not $87. .
If you all think the shopper should be paid the $75, then it needs to be called something else. It's not a reimbursement. I don't see how it can be.
I'm asking three attorney friends about this. If they say the shopper is entitled to the $75, then I'll eat crow and take my lashings with the wet noodle.
I learn something new every day, but not everyday!
I've learned to never trust spell-check or my phone's auto-fill feature.
I've learned to never trust spell-check or my phone's auto-fill feature.
@BirdyC wrote:
But, the person being reimbursed must have suffered a loss (monetary or otherwise) or a damage. Nobody here has been able to explain how this shopper has suffered a loss of any kind. She is already "whole." She didn't suffer a monetary loss, since she's not "out of pocket" for the meal. She didn't suffer a loss or damage, since she got the meal she contracted to order and receive. She can't be "reimbursed" for the expense or loss suffered by a third party, the friend who paid for the meal. The contract between the MSC and the shopper is an agreement for the shopper to order and pay for a meal, for which the shopper would be reimbursed. If the shopper doesn't pay for the meal, it's impossible for there to be a reimbursement--given the definition and intent of a reimbursement.
But we have explained it over and over and over and you just don't seem to understand it.
There are reasons that a body stays in motion
At the moment only demons come to mind
At the moment only demons come to mind
From what I have read everyone disagreeing with completely understands the concept of reimbursement. One point made, the one I completely agree with, someone is benefiting from the largesse of the husband's colleague and it should not be either the client or the MSC. The contract between the shopper and MSC is the restaurant, via the MSC, will reimburse the shopper. The shopper agrees to a tedious report because the shop "compensation" is $87 on paper.
I also agree this cannot be compared to a situation where the restaurant comps the meal. In fact, when the meal gets comped the client restaurant has actually saved themselves a few bucks because it is the real cost of the meal being given, which does not include mark up.
As to the silliness of "what if her husband pays," it is just that, silly. Whether they comingle funds is of no matter. The same with a gift card if it is allowed on a shop. The shopper would still be entitled to reimbursement for the entire meal.
I also agree this cannot be compared to a situation where the restaurant comps the meal. In fact, when the meal gets comped the client restaurant has actually saved themselves a few bucks because it is the real cost of the meal being given, which does not include mark up.
As to the silliness of "what if her husband pays," it is just that, silly. Whether they comingle funds is of no matter. The same with a gift card if it is allowed on a shop. The shopper would still be entitled to reimbursement for the entire meal.
Equal rights for others does not mean fewer rights for you. It's not pie.
"I prefer someone who burns the flag and then wraps themselves up in the Constitution over someone who burns the Constitution and then wraps themselves up in the flag." -Molly Ivins
Never try to teach a pig to sing. It's a waste of your time and it really annoys the pig.
"I prefer someone who burns the flag and then wraps themselves up in the Constitution over someone who burns the Constitution and then wraps themselves up in the flag." -Molly Ivins
Never try to teach a pig to sing. It's a waste of your time and it really annoys the pig.
@bgriffin wrote:
@BirdyC wrote:
But, the person being reimbursed must have suffered a loss (monetary or otherwise) or a damage. Nobody here has been able to explain how this shopper has suffered a loss of any kind. She is already "whole." She didn't suffer a monetary loss, since she's not "out of pocket" for the meal. She didn't suffer a loss or damage, since she got the meal she contracted to order and receive. She can't be "reimbursed" for the expense or loss suffered by a third party, the friend who paid for the meal. The contract between the MSC and the shopper is an agreement for the shopper to order and pay for a meal, for which the shopper would be reimbursed. If the shopper doesn't pay for the meal, it's impossible for there to be a reimbursement--given the definition and intent of a reimbursement.
But we have explained it over and over and over and you just don't seem to understand it.
I've understood what you've (not "you" solely, but those who are taking the same position) said. But, I don't understand--with good reason--why you're saying it. To claim that the MSC owes the shopper money that wasn't spent by the shopper flies in the face of logic. Respectfully, I don't think people are understanding the definition and intent of "reimbursement." How can the shopper be due a reimbursement when she incurred no out-of-pocket expense and no other loss? (She lost time, but she was going to lose it anyway; there's no extra loss.)
Just because the shop agreement didn't say "...reimbursement to you for monies paid out of your own pocket for the meal" doesn't mean anything, as some are asserting. That meaning is inherent in the word "reimbursement." (And, yes, I know, reimbursement isn't always given after an expense is incurred; sometimes it's before.)
Maybe I'm making my position too convoluted.
1. Shopper agreed to perform a dining shop for a $12 fee and a meal, the latter in the form of reimbursement. (Shoppers know this means they pay for the meal, and the MSC pays them back. It needn't be explicitly stated.)
2. Shopper orders the meal, makes the required observations, but someone at another table pays for the meal. (Under ordinary circumstances, the shop has just been compromised, but shopper wrangles a receipt out of the restaurant. That alone might be a violation of guidelines, but let's assume it's not.)
3. Shopper has not paid for the meal, but has received the value of the meal.
4. Shopper completes the report, for which the agreed-upon fee is $12.
4. Since the shopper didn't pay for the meal, even though she provided a receipt, there can be no reimbursement to her by the MSC.
5. If the report is accepted, the shopper receives the $12. At that point, the shopper is entirely whole. She received a meal at no cost to her, and she received the $12 fee.
Where is the loss for which she should be reimbursed? The value of her time, the fact that she now owes the friend a dinner, etc., are extraneous issues. The value of her time has already been accounted for in the meal she received at no cost and in the $12 fee she agreed to. It doesn't matter that a friend paid for the meal and not the restaurant: The result is the same. She had no-out-of-pocket expense.
But, as I said, if the legal experts, which we aren't, say you're right, I'll eat my hat.
I learn something new every day, but not everyday!
I've learned to never trust spell-check or my phone's auto-fill feature.
I've learned to never trust spell-check or my phone's auto-fill feature.
No. You're not making your position convoluted. I totally understand your position. Your position is just incorrect. I have explained why it is incorrect over and over and you refuse to understand it. I do not know a simpler way of explaining it.
There are reasons that a body stays in motion
At the moment only demons come to mind
At the moment only demons come to mind
I really have to speak to something else I saw on this thread. The following are comments from sojo that I find totally out of line. The OP began her thread by explaining she was relatively new. She explained the situation in great detail. Most of us know a receipt is not an option. Most of us also know this situation is rare. Think about yourself as a new shopper who has read guidelines stating you MUST have a receipt. Despite having the receipt she chose to be straightforward with the MSC. If she had been less than honest she would be receiving the $75 and not be posting here. She has put forth her own opinion and arguments for why she feels she should receive the additional pay. Not exactly just trying to get something for nothing.
"The way I see it----->The Op is not being totally honest."
"She "rangled" a receipt from the establishment. "
"It has been 5 days since the OP posted this post. and She has only replied one since. She probably has bitten off more that she can chew in posting . Wanting something for nothing is not a good thing."
"For all we know, the OP could have grab the receipt out of the trash can. After all, she is trying to get $75 back from a meal she did not pay for."
"The way I see it----->The Op is not being totally honest."
"She "rangled" a receipt from the establishment. "
"It has been 5 days since the OP posted this post. and She has only replied one since. She probably has bitten off more that she can chew in posting . Wanting something for nothing is not a good thing."
"For all we know, the OP could have grab the receipt out of the trash can. After all, she is trying to get $75 back from a meal she did not pay for."
Equal rights for others does not mean fewer rights for you. It's not pie.
"I prefer someone who burns the flag and then wraps themselves up in the Constitution over someone who burns the Constitution and then wraps themselves up in the flag." -Molly Ivins
Never try to teach a pig to sing. It's a waste of your time and it really annoys the pig.
"I prefer someone who burns the flag and then wraps themselves up in the Constitution over someone who burns the Constitution and then wraps themselves up in the flag." -Molly Ivins
Never try to teach a pig to sing. It's a waste of your time and it really annoys the pig.
I think the confusion is that the restaurant shop's fee was considered to be the full payment for the shop. And the meal was actually given for free by the client as long as the shopper pays for it. When I accept a restaurant assignment, I consider the fee and the reimbursement to be the full payment for the shop. The shop is never a free meal. Whether it was paid by myself or someone else is immaterial. If the shop was successful, I want the full payment.
The OP was definitely not "wanting something for nothing."
I agree with the above posting by LisaSTL.
The OP was definitely not "wanting something for nothing."
I agree with the above posting by LisaSTL.
@BirdyC wrote:
3. Shopper has not paid for the meal, but has received the value of the meal.
I don't know why I keep doing this but here is where you are mostly wrong. The shopper paid for the meal with a gift from an unrelated party. The fact that the gift was given from an unrelated party directly to the client does not change the fact that the shopper did indeed pay for the meal.
Edited to add:
Reimbursement does not require the funds to go directly from the shopper to the client. That seems to be your sticking point and it is simply incorrect.
There are reasons that a body stays in motion
At the moment only demons come to mind
At the moment only demons come to mind
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/30/2017 01:47AM by bgriffin.
Here is what happened in my opinion:
1. Shopper agrees to do a shop for $12 plus reimbursement of the meal.
2. Shopper orders the meal and makes the required observations.
3. Non-related entity gives the shopper a gift of the amount of money the meal costs.
4. Shopper pays for the meal with the gift from the non-related entity
5. Shopper is paid the $12 fee plus reimbursement of the cost of the meal
The problem is you can't seem to get your head around the fact that #3 and #4 happened at the same time. But they did both happen.
If 1 second before or 1 second after the shopper paid for the meal the friend had walked over, asked the shopper what the amount of their check was, handed that amount to the shopper, the shopper put that money in their pocket, and paid the check with a debit card, you would agree the shopper is owed reimbursement. But because all of those things happened at 1 time you suddenly refuse to see that all of those steps did happen and think the shopper is not owed. The fact that the friend bypassed all of those steps does not change anything. The shopper paid for the meal and is owed reimbursement.
1. Shopper agrees to do a shop for $12 plus reimbursement of the meal.
2. Shopper orders the meal and makes the required observations.
3. Non-related entity gives the shopper a gift of the amount of money the meal costs.
4. Shopper pays for the meal with the gift from the non-related entity
5. Shopper is paid the $12 fee plus reimbursement of the cost of the meal
The problem is you can't seem to get your head around the fact that #3 and #4 happened at the same time. But they did both happen.
If 1 second before or 1 second after the shopper paid for the meal the friend had walked over, asked the shopper what the amount of their check was, handed that amount to the shopper, the shopper put that money in their pocket, and paid the check with a debit card, you would agree the shopper is owed reimbursement. But because all of those things happened at 1 time you suddenly refuse to see that all of those steps did happen and think the shopper is not owed. The fact that the friend bypassed all of those steps does not change anything. The shopper paid for the meal and is owed reimbursement.
There are reasons that a body stays in motion
At the moment only demons come to mind
At the moment only demons come to mind
To me it doesn't take five bullet points. I am not a contract lawyer, but as I see it the shopper "sold" her services to the MSC and client for $87. She is therefore owed $87.
We cannot equate this to reimbursement as it relates to a business expense account. The analogies to the plumber were more on track. Your plumber bids your job based on the labor of two workers. The plumber has a friend who owes him a favor. The friend performs their part of the labor for free. The plumber doesn't then owe you a refund because you got the value of the work.
The MSC and client placed the value on this assignment. Nothing justifies them getting the $87 in value for the bargain basement price of $12.
We cannot equate this to reimbursement as it relates to a business expense account. The analogies to the plumber were more on track. Your plumber bids your job based on the labor of two workers. The plumber has a friend who owes him a favor. The friend performs their part of the labor for free. The plumber doesn't then owe you a refund because you got the value of the work.
The MSC and client placed the value on this assignment. Nothing justifies them getting the $87 in value for the bargain basement price of $12.
Equal rights for others does not mean fewer rights for you. It's not pie.
"I prefer someone who burns the flag and then wraps themselves up in the Constitution over someone who burns the Constitution and then wraps themselves up in the flag." -Molly Ivins
Never try to teach a pig to sing. It's a waste of your time and it really annoys the pig.
"I prefer someone who burns the flag and then wraps themselves up in the Constitution over someone who burns the Constitution and then wraps themselves up in the flag." -Molly Ivins
Never try to teach a pig to sing. It's a waste of your time and it really annoys the pig.
@risinghorizon wrote:
I think the confusion is that the restaurant shop's fee was considered to be the full payment for the shop. And the meal was actually given for free by the client as long as the shopper pays for it. When I accept a restaurant assignment, I consider the fee and the reimbursement to be the full payment for the shop. The shop is never a free meal. Whether it was paid by myself or someone else is immaterial. If the shop was successful, I want the full payment.
The OP was definitely not "wanting something for nothing."
I agree with the above posting by LisaSTL.
Exactly. And of course for those reimbursement-only shops, the "payment" would be the reimbursement.
As usual, I can agree with both sides of the argument. Each side has given perfectly valid points.
If it had happened to me, I would have cancelled the shop and rescheduled it, thanked the generous person who paid for my meal, and invited him (or her, or them) over for dinner at my house.
But I wouldn't have KNOWN about the option of rescheduling when I was a new shopper.
I see this as the shopper doing the right (ethical) thing (telling the truth about someone else paying for the bill) and it coming back to bite them on the...rear. If she had done the "wrong" thing (submitted the receipt as though she had paid for the meal herself) and lied (by omission -- which in MY book is still lying), it would have gone through without a problem. Oh, EXCEPT unless when the client got the report and said, wait a minute, that diner didn't pay for their meal at all -- another guest that night did!!! Then the consequences could have been quite HORRID -- outed as the shopper, blacklisted for unethical behavior, deactivated as a shopper -- a nightmare for the newbie!!!!
Shopper did the right thing.
While it came back and took a chunk out of her left cheek, it didn't take as big a chunk as if she had gotten caught being unethical.
Kudos to the shopper.
I don't know about the reimbursement. Guess that's up to the MSC. I HOPE if I ran an MSC that I would pay the shopper, realizing that she now owed that "friend" or "acquaintance" a meal.
If it had happened to me, I would have cancelled the shop and rescheduled it, thanked the generous person who paid for my meal, and invited him (or her, or them) over for dinner at my house.
But I wouldn't have KNOWN about the option of rescheduling when I was a new shopper.
I see this as the shopper doing the right (ethical) thing (telling the truth about someone else paying for the bill) and it coming back to bite them on the...rear. If she had done the "wrong" thing (submitted the receipt as though she had paid for the meal herself) and lied (by omission -- which in MY book is still lying), it would have gone through without a problem. Oh, EXCEPT unless when the client got the report and said, wait a minute, that diner didn't pay for their meal at all -- another guest that night did!!! Then the consequences could have been quite HORRID -- outed as the shopper, blacklisted for unethical behavior, deactivated as a shopper -- a nightmare for the newbie!!!!
Shopper did the right thing.
While it came back and took a chunk out of her left cheek, it didn't take as big a chunk as if she had gotten caught being unethical.
Kudos to the shopper.
I don't know about the reimbursement. Guess that's up to the MSC. I HOPE if I ran an MSC that I would pay the shopper, realizing that she now owed that "friend" or "acquaintance" a meal.
I'm not sure it would have been quite so easy for the restaurant to determine who paid nor can I see why they would even go through all that research. If so, then what happens when couples go out, do restaurants looks to see the name on the credit card was Jane Smith and not John Jones? Since John Jones was the shopper would they then deny reimbursement?
Equal rights for others does not mean fewer rights for you. It's not pie.
"I prefer someone who burns the flag and then wraps themselves up in the Constitution over someone who burns the Constitution and then wraps themselves up in the flag." -Molly Ivins
Never try to teach a pig to sing. It's a waste of your time and it really annoys the pig.
"I prefer someone who burns the flag and then wraps themselves up in the Constitution over someone who burns the Constitution and then wraps themselves up in the flag." -Molly Ivins
Never try to teach a pig to sing. It's a waste of your time and it really annoys the pig.
I often use my spouses credit card because of the rewards. Different name. You don't have to be there as a couple to have a credit card discrepancy.
This situation totally sucks, is not fair, and I would be furious. I would be out a future dinner with the colleague, and still have to write a crappy report. I'd probably tell them to shove it as I don't allow myself to be treated badly.
This situation totally sucks, is not fair, and I would be furious. I would be out a future dinner with the colleague, and still have to write a crappy report. I'd probably tell them to shove it as I don't allow myself to be treated badly.
@LisaSTL wrote:
I'm not sure it would have been quite so easy for the restaurant to determine who paid nor can I see why they would even go through all that research. If so, then what happens when couples go out, do restaurants looks to see the name on the credit card was Jane Smith and not John Jones? Since John Jones was the shopper would they then deny reimbursement?
Going forward, there is not much the OP can do: The MSC has the report and there is nothing clear in the guidelines or ICA about this. Thus, the MSC has all the bargaining power. I struggle with the MSC not honoring the reimbursement from an ethical standpoint: A friend clearly gave the OP a gift and the MSC has, effectively, taken the gift. At the same time, how can the OP expect to be reimbursed money that s/he never spent? This stinks all around. I would hope that the MSC would find the good graces to, at the least, split the difference with the OP.
Looking back, such a situation should have been handled by the OP differently, from a strategic standpoint. (No, I would not likely have thought of this on the spot, either.) Until a report was submitted, the OP had all the bargaining power. The MSC needed the shop done if it wanted to be paid by the client - which was likely a lot more than the pittance the OP was due. The OP could have explained the situation and given the MSC two choices: Either renegotiate the compensation for the shop or reschedule it for a different date. Unless the MSC wanted to play hardball and threaten to cut the shopper out, this should come out as a positive outcome for the OP.
Looking back, such a situation should have been handled by the OP differently, from a strategic standpoint. (No, I would not likely have thought of this on the spot, either.) Until a report was submitted, the OP had all the bargaining power. The MSC needed the shop done if it wanted to be paid by the client - which was likely a lot more than the pittance the OP was due. The OP could have explained the situation and given the MSC two choices: Either renegotiate the compensation for the shop or reschedule it for a different date. Unless the MSC wanted to play hardball and threaten to cut the shopper out, this should come out as a positive outcome for the OP.
Hard work builds character and homework is good for your soul.
WOW! I have just read this entire thread. Sure, it's been five plus days since I've posted last. I don't spend my every waking hour trolling this forum and no, to whoever you are, I did not "bite off more than I can chew". Looks like I have opened up a x%$# storm. Thanks very much to LisaSTL for bringing attention to all of this:
"The way I see it----->The Op is not being totally honest."
"She "rangled" a receipt from the establishment. "
"It has been 5 days since the OP posted this post. and She has only replied one since. She probably has bitten off more that she can chew in posting . Wanting something for nothing is not a good thing."
"For all we know, the OP could have grab the receipt out of the trash can. After all, she is trying to get $75 back from a meal she did not pay for."
It's true, I am very new to mystery shopping. I just started in February. I do it solely as a way for my husband and I to go on dinner dates while spending very little money. We have two children and I would much rather spend any extra money we have on them. I find it very disheartening to see comments like the ones above being posted about me. I also find it very disrespectful that someone would accuse me of having two different user names as well! I believed this forum to be a place where one could go for advice from other, more seasoned, "professionals" in this business. Shame on you posters who are trying to belittle me and slander my name. I ran into a situation that was very unusual and clearly very polarizing. I would never work three hours (yes, it took me three hours to report - and I type fast) for $12.00 pay. I would, however, work three hours for $87.00. (whether it be in food or cash).
Being so new, I guess I didn't realize that I could contact the msc prior to filling out my report. Obviously that would have been the correct thing to do in this situation. I wholeheartedly stand by my viewpoint as stated in my second post. I understand and respect that there are others who see it differently. I also understand that MSCs are a dime a dozen and I am perfectly content breaking ties with this particular one. I do not depend on mystery shopping as a livelihood and thus, I have no need or desire to align myself with companies that are not willing to advocate for their shoppers. (again, I understand that many here do not see it this way).
As a follow up to anyone wondering, I did receive the $12.00 fee for this shop. I will not fight any longer for a reimbursement as I've already spent way too much of my life just reading this thread about it. I highly doubt it would make a difference anyway. I am about to email the MSC now to tell them that I no longer wish to be in their database. I believe I am a highly desirable shopper with excellent writing skills and work ethic. Frankly, it is their loss. As for this forum, I appreciate very much those few members who found it in themselves to stand up for my integrity when many others were trying to run it through the mud. I will not be posting here again.
"The way I see it----->The Op is not being totally honest."
"She "rangled" a receipt from the establishment. "
"It has been 5 days since the OP posted this post. and She has only replied one since. She probably has bitten off more that she can chew in posting . Wanting something for nothing is not a good thing."
"For all we know, the OP could have grab the receipt out of the trash can. After all, she is trying to get $75 back from a meal she did not pay for."
It's true, I am very new to mystery shopping. I just started in February. I do it solely as a way for my husband and I to go on dinner dates while spending very little money. We have two children and I would much rather spend any extra money we have on them. I find it very disheartening to see comments like the ones above being posted about me. I also find it very disrespectful that someone would accuse me of having two different user names as well! I believed this forum to be a place where one could go for advice from other, more seasoned, "professionals" in this business. Shame on you posters who are trying to belittle me and slander my name. I ran into a situation that was very unusual and clearly very polarizing. I would never work three hours (yes, it took me three hours to report - and I type fast) for $12.00 pay. I would, however, work three hours for $87.00. (whether it be in food or cash).
Being so new, I guess I didn't realize that I could contact the msc prior to filling out my report. Obviously that would have been the correct thing to do in this situation. I wholeheartedly stand by my viewpoint as stated in my second post. I understand and respect that there are others who see it differently. I also understand that MSCs are a dime a dozen and I am perfectly content breaking ties with this particular one. I do not depend on mystery shopping as a livelihood and thus, I have no need or desire to align myself with companies that are not willing to advocate for their shoppers. (again, I understand that many here do not see it this way).
As a follow up to anyone wondering, I did receive the $12.00 fee for this shop. I will not fight any longer for a reimbursement as I've already spent way too much of my life just reading this thread about it. I highly doubt it would make a difference anyway. I am about to email the MSC now to tell them that I no longer wish to be in their database. I believe I am a highly desirable shopper with excellent writing skills and work ethic. Frankly, it is their loss. As for this forum, I appreciate very much those few members who found it in themselves to stand up for my integrity when many others were trying to run it through the mud. I will not be posting here again.
Why would you not be posting here anymore? You had provided a very interesting topic and maybe the most popular thread at this time. By voicing out, you hopefully opened the eyes of some MSCs. Don't be intimidated by some posters. This is the pulse of the Forum. I'm sure many members would welcome your future posts.
Let me say to you, Staceython, please don't take it personally. We get a lot of people who seem to think that Mystery shopping is an easy way to get freebies, from time to time. And then there's just the fact that people in general are jaded. Try to ignore what you feel are out of line personal comments, and focus on the discussion. There's nothing wrong with disagreements and hashing it out. I agree with risinghorizen that you possibly opened the eyes of some MSC's. They need to hear this type of feedback from shoppers, voiced in a safe place. This has been a valuable thread on more than one level. So thank you for bringing it here.
Integrity and honest makes a better package than thievery Reimbursement is a fair situation but one must know, all it entails.
"Relatively new" does not mean, one was born yesterday.
At any time during shop, before and after, a scheduler can be approached. Not knowing is never an excuse. The amount of time spent on a report is time consuming, so is getting a 9 2 5. One has to paced themselves and not try to get over and above.
One does not have to deactivated, if a MSC needs to, they will do it. No matter how good one is or appears. JKRowling is a excellent writer but yet in her darkest hour, she, considered suicide.
"Relatively new" does not mean, one was born yesterday.
At any time during shop, before and after, a scheduler can be approached. Not knowing is never an excuse. The amount of time spent on a report is time consuming, so is getting a 9 2 5. One has to paced themselves and not try to get over and above.
One does not have to deactivated, if a MSC needs to, they will do it. No matter how good one is or appears. JKRowling is a excellent writer but yet in her darkest hour, she, considered suicide.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.