The MSC's have been relying on the free market concept for ages to justify their low payment schemes, and I'm sure they will continue to, since components of the current economy will drive even more shoppers to them.
I consider myself fortunate to have other options where I can focus my energy on that earn more. I know many here feel squeezed by the current pricing structure and cost of goods, yet don't have a choice but to power through.
Like Bob, I see this as business-only and now take shops strictly when they benefit me. No more favors for schedulers. I will happily 'cherry pick' the best assignments and not have a second thought about ignoring the stragglers that remain on the board...sorry @claabe
I was recently in a relatively remote location outside the U.S. where 2 dinner shops were posted at a resort. I took one because I wanted to see what this particular resort was like. It was clearly the more desirable restaurant of the two, and the scheduler agreed to my requested fee, which was much higher than I would have gotten domestically. After finishing the first report, I offered to take the second assignment before leaving the country, for a higher fee (enough to cover a night at the resort), and was declined. The shop is still sitting there. I cannot see how they will get it assigned and completed by the end of this month. Even if one was at the resort on their own, it's almost too much work for the reimbursement considering the price of food in that part of the world. There's no online menu so I checked out the menu when I was there. It was nothing I was excited about, and so my offer included what I thought was a fair compensation for it being undesirable both geographically and gastronomically, but it wasn't out of this world. Maybe $150 more than they would have agreed to.
So here's the big question; Will the MSC lose the client for not scheduling the shop?
I am sure the client knows it's a difficult location to find a shopper for, but when the scheduler agreed to give me the first restaurant, they showed their hand, since the client now knows they can get a quality shopper to that location. Whether or not it results in them losing the client, I cannot say, but I feel pretty well assured that it makes them look bad in the eyes of the client.
If you have a client with locations all over the word, who is rapidly expanding, in what business universe would it not be advisable to pay an additional $150 to knock out 2 hard-to-schedule locations and potentially impress your client? That's a rhetorical question because there isn't a universe where that makes sense. The answer is that the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. The scheduler is just being a scheduler and not thinking big picture about pleasing the client. The MSC is just being cheap, as usual, and not empowering the scheduler to do their job in a way that benefits the MSC down the line. It's small thinking all the way around.
I am also glad I held them to the higher fee for the first location because, like always, they screwed me in the currency conversion in the reimbursement. I literally included a receipt that showed the USD conversation for the meal on the credit card slip and their stingy policy of looking up the theoretical exchange rate for that day and applying it, rather than the effective rate, cost me $9.
And then it's really down to the same rhetorical question; In what universe does pissing off one of your top evaluators for $9 make sense? I smile a bit each day that I see that restaurant on the job board still...