I might be wrong, but I think the "logic" point Steve is making is: The shop was not completed. Regardless of anyone's opinions, feelings, etc., .... no completed shop = no pay....period. I am not taking any sides, but from reading this, I thought that is what it basically came down to.

And it only took three pages to get there

Oh, PLEASE!!! Can this thread be closed now??? The longer it goes on, the more things are being taken out of context and twisted. As per the post above, people are no longer even clear at whom the comments have been directed.

I think we all understand the OP's dilemma, we just have different perspectives and opinions, and indeed, part of the issue was the thread's accusatory title. There's honestly no need for a cyber-debate -- seriously, it's a no-win/no-win situation.

Feel free not to debate. Feel free to skip the thread entirely. Hit the back button on your browser.

I will respond to whatever post I feel like responding to (and continue to do so until I'm finished).

Jen, absolutely none of that was directed at you. My apologies if you thought it was. You have always been respectful in your postings, even if they were in opposition to mine.

Spaztck is correct in the restatement of my point; While the OP wrote what appeared to be a logical post, it failed to take into account the shopper's legal responsibility to complete the shop in order to have the contract honored.

I fully admit that my response was sarcastic when the OP neglected to understand that while attempting to present a sense of professionalism in not repeatedly performing a shop while being a known entity, they were being perceived as unprofessional on other levels. The discussion had already begun to dissolve at that point, so it was meant as a point of levity.

Absolutely no worries. I just wanted to be sure I was being clear (if any of it was). I'm also sorry I missed the opportunity for levity! Some of the best threads here have started with this kind of thing and then led to things like recipe exchanges and a reason to hit the open bar! =D Next time!

And to quote the Bard, "All's well that ends well."

jentodd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Feel free not to debate. Feel free to skip the
> thread entirely. Hit the back button on your
> browser.
>
> I will respond to whatever post I feel like
> responding to (and continue to do so until I'm
> finished).


It's clear you haven't noticed, but I'm not debating.

jentodd,
And I see no reason for this one to go anywhere except to the open bar. I will deal blackjack if someone will get me a nice full pour of pinot grigio.

I'm making guacamole and tortilla eggs. Margaritas, anyone?

(making an attempt to interject some late in the game humor) well hey....the good news here is, I'm still so new that EVERYONE here is on a pedestal as far as I'm concerned, and I'm still happily playing at their feet gleaning whatever bits of hard earned wisdom I can get along the way

If anyone actually comes back here to read yet another comment on this severely beaten dead topic....let me say this to all of you...PLEASE keep doing what you do, you are appreciated, and I very much recognize and am amazed you all actually CAN do what you do and still find time to help others here. Recognized....Respected....Very much appreciated!

I can't believe the time spent on these posts-
There is so much good that we can accomplish - move forward, get on with it and make a difference

Oh for the love of Pete, it's 15 bucks... if you don't want to work for them, don't, be done with it... by now I am certain they will not mind.

After reading this epic fight over a $15 phone shop, I have to imagine if there will ever be a fight over a certain MSC's $2 funeral phone shops?

Chaffy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I can't believe the time spent on these posts-
> There is so much good that we can accomplish -
> move forward, get on with it and make a difference
>


Isn't it a little ironic that this post was made about a thread almost two years old?

It is certainly odd. Chaffy registered four months ago and posted that she was a new scheduler who needed Prophet training, although she did not add a signature line or identify the company for whom she schedules. Perhaps Chaffy will post again and let us know what specifically caught her attention in this two year old thread that made her feel it needed to be brought to the future with a "move on" comment. Silly me, I thought the OP left and we all moved on two years ago.........

BAHAHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA, I didn't even notice the date!!!

Perhaps Chaffy was researching scheduling companies and simply felt inclined to comment after reading the thread.

While I can understand the initial reaction of feeling like the entire thread was a big waste of time, the fact that people are re-reading it almost 2 years later supports my theory that much of what goes into these type of threads is for the benefit of future readers, and not the OP's.

It's also a reminder for those who feel the tone of this forum is changing that nothing really changes much here (as far as attitude goes).

AustinMom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It is certainly odd. Chaffy registered four
> months ago and posted that she was a new scheduler
> who needed Prophet training, although she did not
> add a signature line or identify the company for
> whom she schedules. Perhaps Chaffy will post
> again and let us know what specifically caught her
> attention in this two year old thread that made
> her feel it needed to be brought to the future
> with a "move on" comment. Silly me, I thought the
> OP left and we all moved on two years ago.........

My tentative theory is that this turned up as Chaffy was searching the forums for scheduling threads, and he or she probably didn't realize how old it was.

I lost payment on two shops: one due to having a rewards card visible in my wallet when I asked, "What are Rewards". I did get the info the client wanted. However I never contacted the scheduler for a heads up.

So I could get my knickers in a bunch. Or just accept it. The have done tons of shops since then for the MSC and the client. So no hard feelings.

The second was a phone shop. I was on my fifth attempt. Got most of the info, the target associate decided I was a live buyer and wanted to get more info from the sales manager. I needed additional info on incentives, which I could have obtained before hanging up if I was thinking on my feet.

The MSC scheduler decided no more calls. I could have been mad, but if I had obtained the info the shop would have been valid.

Such is life. I still shop for them too.

OMG. And I was reading a recent (2014) thread on Summit Scheduling and clicked on "more discussions on Summit Scheduling". That is how I got to this 2 year old thread. But I did see a more recent end date to it in 2014 so I read the entire thing to see what kept people's attention going for 2 years. I really need to stop looking for excuses not to go to sleep at 2 AM. And none of us are even getting paid $15 after putting so much time and energy into this thread. Me, just time.

jeez...what a lot of words and so very confusing.

I actually read this whole thread due to it being on the forum appearing as a current thread. I haven't been paid for a few shops where either I screwed up (it's so easy to forget one little thing!) or it just didn't work out. I only protested once here, believing I had fulfilled my end, and the MSC listened, resolved my concerns and I got paid, which was really nice! This shop also involved shopping targeted employees, whom, in my case, didn't show up and nobody bothered to verify when or if they were going to be working. I don't really like shopping targeted employees much in the first place because you always have to make up some vague story as to how you heard about them. I certainly would never accept a shop where I had to give as much personal information as this shopper was asked for, whether the fee was $100 or 15. No client is getting my phone number, address, birthday, AND SS number. But, knowing that caller ID info couldn't be hidden to make the calls did appear to make it very likely that the shopper would not have been able to continue the shop and call another person to get the quote needed to complete the shop without being outed as a mystery shopper, unless anyone thinks nobody in the office talks to each other, in which case she wouldn't have been paid anyway. The only other option would've been for the shopper to use a different phone, which may or may not have been possible. So ... it seems to me the shopper was caught between a rock and a hard place, and I believe the client should've paid the money, since it was their fault the targeted employee couldn't give the information required. The client should absolutely know, when they ask for an employee to be specifically targeted for mystery shopping, that the employee knows the information they are asking a mystery shopper to get. I believe the scheduling company should've at LEAST gone to bat for the shopper instead of wimping out over a quote that couldn't be obtained because the client asked the shopper to target the wrong employee.

Another post that caught my attention came from a scheduler saying schedulers "don't get paid enough" to verify targets with clients, and clients are often too busy with other more important matters to make sure a targeted employee actually is the right person to shop when the client creates a job for a mystery shopper, was rather disturbing. I've seen plenty of shops with targeted employees where everything went smoothly because clients conveyed the correct information to schedulers and the shopper. I don't think I'd work for BRG knowing they'd request mystery shoppers for a job without doing their part. Summit Scheduling has always been okay with me, although I'm not terribly fond of independent schedulers, only because they are working for a lot of MSCs and are generally not as committed as the schedulers who only work for one MSC.

Sorry to beat an old dead horse, but it was a new, live horse to me!

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/19/2014 10:19PM by nycrocks.

nycrocks Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I actually read this whole thread due to it being
> on the forum appearing as a current thread. I
> haven't been paid for a few shops where either I
> screwed up (it's so easy to forget one little
> thing!) or it just didn't work out. I only
> protested once, the MSC listened, resolved my
> concerns and I got paid, which was really nice!
> This shop also involved shopping targeted
> employees, whom, in my case, didn't show up and
> nobody bothered to verify when or if they were
> going to be working. I don't really like shopping
> targeting employees much in the first place
> because you always have to make up some vague
> story as to how you heard about them. I certainly
> would never accept a shop where I had to give as
> much personal information as this shopper was
> asked for, whether the fee was $100 or 15. No
> client is getting my phone number, address,
> birthday, AND SS number. But, knowing that caller
> IDs couldn't be hidden to make the calls did
> appear to make it very likely that the shopper
> would not have been able to continue the shop and
> call another person to get the quote needed to
> complete the shop without being outed as a mystery
> shopper, unless anyone thinks nobody in the office
> talks to each other, in which case she wouldn't
> have been paid anyway. So ... it seems to me the
> shopper was caught between a rock and a hard
> place, and I believe the client should've paid the
> money, since it was their fault the targeted
> employee couldn't give the information required.
> The client should absolutely know, when they ask
> for an employee to be specifically targeted for
> mystery shopping, that the employee knows the
> information they are asking a mystery shopper to
> get. I believe the scheduling company should've at
> LEAST gone to bat for the shopper instead of
> wimping out over a quote that couldn't be obtained
> because the client asked the shopper to target the
> wrong employee.
>
> Another post that caught my attention came from a
> scheduler saying schedulers "don't get paid
> enough" to verify targets with clients, and
> clients are often too busy with other more
> important matters to make sure a targeted employee
> actually is the right person to shop when the
> client creates a job for a mystery shopper, was
> rather disturbing. I've seen plenty of shops with
> targeted employees where everything went smoothly
> because clients conveyed the correct information
> to schedulers and the shopper. I don't think I'd
> work for BRG knowing they'd request mystery
> shoppers for a job without doing their part.
> Summit Scheduling has always been okay with me,
> although I'm not terribly fond of independent
> schedulers, only because they are working for a
> lot of MSCs and are generally not as committed as
> the schedulers who only work for one MSC.
>
> Sorry to beat an old dead horse, but it was a new,
> live horse to me!

good thoughts...thanks