GFK offered me an opportunity to work for free! I feel so honored.

This is part of the distasteful email that I received:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Auditors (meaning you have never done an audit) - open dates are August 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th.

***If you are new but would like to shadow another auditor before you do a real audit, let me know. I could set that up as well.

But note, you are not paid for shadowing someone, this is strictly a learning process to help you with your first audit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I can't even imagine the gall that they must have to do this. This is 2018 in the united states not 1729 Thailand. Seriously, wth?

Create an Account or Log In

Membership is free. Simply choose your username, type in your email address, and choose a password. You immediately get full access to the forum.

More Discussions About GFK Mystery Shopping (All Companies)

And what do you have against 1729 Thailand?

Shopping Western NY, Northeast and Central PA, and parts of Ohio and West Virginia. Have car will travel anywhere if the monies right.

The Kelantan Dynasty ended in 1729 and thus began the heavy burden of China's "input".

And what do you have for 1729 Thailand?

I don't work for free.

Just remember, you are not an employee but an independent contractor. An employee gets paid for training, independent contractors do not.

I have to disagree with that. Independent contractors have no obligation to do free training. Learning on the job is what I have done with every new job. Sure I studied a bit and took a test to do gas stations, but from what I've gleaned the audits GFK does are many hours and very involved. If I give up 6-8 hours I should get paid, even if it's a nominal fee because I'm training. When I was offered training for Chipotle it was going to be paid.

I, too, disagree that ICs aren't paid for training. Chipotle did pay, and many years ago, I looked into doing pricing audits for grocery stores. That training was paid, too, although the job was as an IC.

Who's going to "shadow" someone for a full day of work at no pay? Making it optional is a way for them to not have to, but if they want their audits done correctly by a new auditor, it would be worth it for them to pay for that "up-close" training. Companies not taking the long view is a real problem in this country.

I learn something new every day, but not everyday!
I've learned to never trust spell-check or my phone's auto-fill feature.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/27/2018 12:09PM by BirdyC.

The person being shadowed should also be offered an additional fee. They are providing a service for the MS company. Being shadowed would also most likely slow the progress of the audit too.

This isn't even a mystery shop, it's an audit for an electronics store and not a small store either. An auditor who earns $9 an hour, maybe. You have to get, and pay for, a background check and you have to provide all of your private data and stats, just like an employee would, to the Client, the Stores and the mystery shopping company. They don't even provide you with the tools you need to complete the assignment. I've seen these advertised for years and they are absolutely on my 100-foot pole list. But now, with this work for free stuff, I'm going to see what I can do about it. They can only be taking advantage of very poor people. Does this client really want very poor people in their stores with the kind of access they have to product and information?

Besides being insulting, they are doing themselves a disservice by not investing some money in training. I have done some detailed financial shops which have had required phone training sessions which I was paid for. It shows me that the MSC respects my time, but it also helped ensure that the shop was done to their very specific guidelines and that the report was written up they way they wanted. I am sure the training resulted in a lot less editing and fewer re-shops.
Last week, I had to do a one-on-one paid training phone call with the project manager/scheduler for a very detailed wealth management bank shop. Besides making sure that the job and report goes smoothly, it gave me a good opportunity to build a relationship with the scheduler. That helped with me getting a second assignment with a nice bonus and her getting a job scheduled quickly that she knows is going to be done right because she trained me well.
These GFK audits are on-going so sounds like it would do them well to invest in their auditors if they want to build long-term relationships.

I don't see anything improper or insulting about this at all. Quite the opposite, I think it's great. Imagine being new and committing to completing what could easily be an 8 hour audit. Having an opportunity to see what's required and how it's done as well as gain tips and insight from an experienced auditor could be quite valuable. If you want it. It is not a requirement. It is an option offered to those shoppers who are unsure if they want to commit. Of course you're not paid, your presence is not necessary, it's for you.
I wonder how many new auditors have walked out after a few hours when they realized it was more involved than they expected.

What about the auditor that is training the new auditor. Aren't they training their replacement. They aren't paid more money to train someone, which would obviously cause them to audit much slower and since it's a flat fee they would make much less money. I wonder why anyone would do that voluntarily.

@TroyHawkins wrote:

I don't see anything improper or insulting about this at all. Quite the opposite, I think it's great. Imagine being new and committing to completing what could easily be an 8 hour audit. Having an opportunity to see what's required and how it's done as well as gain tips and insight from an experienced auditor could be quite valuable. If you want it. It is not a requirement. It is an option offered to those shoppers who are unsure if they want to commit. Of course you're not paid, your presence is not necessary, it's for you.
I wonder how many new auditors have walked out after a few hours when they realized it was more involved than they expected.

I agree. It would be different if the observer were required to actually contribute to the audit. That would be work.

I remember an auditor posting that they were asked if they would allow a shadow to follow them on an audit. They said heck no!!! Why would anyone train someone to take work away from them?

@JASFLALMT wrote:

I remember an auditor posting that they were asked if they would allow a shadow to follow them on an audit. They said heck no!!! Why would anyone train someone to take work away from them?

Might as well ask why anyone would ever do a reimbursement only shop. Might makes sense for the person.

The point of my post is that the auditor said heck no.

They have employees that work the audits also. Those employees must be the ones doing the training.

@SueGraftonFan wrote:

@TroyHawkins wrote:

I don't see anything improper or insulting about this at all. Quite the opposite, I think it's great. Imagine being new and committing to completing what could easily be an 8 hour audit. Having an opportunity to see what's required and how it's done as well as gain tips and insight from an experienced auditor could be quite valuable. If you want it. It is not a requirement. It is an option offered to those shoppers who are unsure if they want to commit. Of course you're not paid, your presence is not necessary, it's for you.
I wonder how many new auditors have walked out after a few hours when they realized it was more involved than they expected.

I agree. It would be different if the observer were required to actually contribute to the audit. That would be work.

I don't see anything wrong with this either. In fact I agree it is a nice gesture. Out in the non mystery shop world many new to the field people would love to be allowed to shadow someone and for free! It does not seem to me to be mandatory based on the way it is worded. I also do not see where they say another shopper will be shadowing current shoppers without their permission and they will not be paid anything additional. Perhaps there is more to the email that was not shared with us.

There is nothing more to the email. One person does not get paid at all and the other person does not get paid to train someone who will be performing the audit every other month in rotation and it will slow down the trainer, obviously, who will then make less money. Only the company wins with this. I can't imagine how 'many' would love to work for a billion dollar company for free so they can then qualify for a $9 an hour, two to five day a month assignment. It baffles the mind.

@JerseyGirlShopper wrote:

There is nothing more to the email. One person does not get paid at all and the other person does not get paid to train someone who will be performing the audit every other month in rotation and it will slow down the trainer, obviously, who will then make less money. Only the company wins with this. I can't imagine how 'many' would love to work for a billion dollar company for free so they can then qualify for a $9 an hour, two to five day a month assignment. It baffles the mind.

How would you know whether the auditor/trainer would or would not benefit from this? You are not privy to communication between the auditor and the company. Furthermore, the auditor who is willing to take on an observer may very well benefit in ways other than straight pay.

I was thinking the same thing, if all the communication is that one email how does anyone know what the other auditor is getting. I do not see it as training the replacement either since there are so many of these locations in every state.

All I know is that an auditor posted here several months back stating they had been asked to allow a shadow to follow them on their audits with no additional pay. This auditor had 3 locations within driving range that they were completing. The auditor did not want to do it, stating it would slow them down. They also did not like that they would not be paid for the training and the person who they were training would be rotated at the same stores, meaning less work for the auditor.

And just because there are many locations within each state does not mean an auditor wants to travel long distances to complete them.

I think the important thing to remember is that everyone has the option to say, "No." We don't have to agree to unpaid training, training others or taking less money that we desire for an assignment.

While it may be shameful for companies to attempt to negotiate this, it's equally shameful that workers agree to it when you realize that it sets a precedent that all other workers may be expected to follow. All of this ire is directed at companies for unfair pay when it's ultimately the workers who are responsible for the environment.

P.S. I feel like there may be more obvious references to unpaid labor than 1729 Thailand...

That is part of the dynasties and is the era that we are studying in my Chinese studies class I have. But you're right, I should only reference examples that you would find more obvious. What's your email addy so I can confer with you before posting my examples and metaphors?

People are so diverse. There are people who are racially prejudiced and don't see anything wrong with it. There are people who believe that waterboarding is useful and that if you don't spank your children they will be rotten. There are still cases of male professors earning more than female and sexual harassment and exploitation in the workforce. There will always be passive and passive-aggressive people who say they like it and if you don't like it, don't participate. The only way that something changes, or at least becomes un-hidden, is through dissent. The purpose of this post is dissent so this practice is not hidden and does not become the norm.

Giving the MSC Kudo's for finding a way to get work done for free and also tease new shoppers to signing up, quite ingenious. Thumbs down for shoppers that actually do this when there are other audits out there to be done for a fee and learn as you do it.....who's the smartest?

Live consciously....

I agree that there is nothing “wrong” with the company offering this. It’s optional. You don’t have to do it.

I’ve been asked to train other evaluators on certain programs I participate in. I have always been offered a small fee to do so but I’ve been rewarded in much bigger ways through meeting new shoppers and the ability to network and also learning tips and tricks from others.

I’ve also been required (not offered) to attend trainings where I shadowed other more experienced auditors or shoppers. I was not paid. I did not consider it in any way insulting or unfair to be asked to do so. It was a requirement of winning the work and being part of a lucrative project.

This is a business and how we each choose to run our business is our own personal choices. When I have participated in these activities (as the shadower or shadower) I viewed them as opportunities for free networking or free training that were worth it to me.

Also I am a big believer in the culture of mentorship and the mentoring movement.

@JerseyGirlShopper wrote:

I should only reference examples that you would find more obvious.

I don't take any issue with you pointing out the issue you had with the request. My point was that if the purpose of dissent is shine a light on a practice that you deem unfair, referencing a potential connection to a location and era that the vast majority of readers on this forum might not know is potentially ineffective. Point is case being that the first response you received was about how Thailand fits into the simile.

The practice of underpaying those that work in this industry is not new. You can read back over the past decade of posts here and see the same theme over and over.

I agree that we should be bringing these types of things to light. I'm just saying don't blame the lion for biting the person who sticks his hand in their mouth....

@MickeyB; I think the different with your example is in the work being lucrative....

Everybody’s definition of lucrative is different.

I signed up to work at the local airport earlier this year. In order to get badged I had to drive over and do a lot of paperwork which turned into many trips. Fortunately I live fairly close but I still spent many many hours getting the proper credentials. I was not paid for any of those hours. I can write off the mileage and they paid for the credentials. I did this all voluntarily in order to get the airport access and hopefully someday decent jobs that pay well there....so there are reasons for some of us.
But as others have said, if it is something you want to do or get and the only way to do it is to do something first without pay then you do it. Your choice.

@JerseyGirlShopper wrote:

People are so diverse. There are people who are racially prejudiced and don't see anything wrong with it. There are people who believe that waterboarding is useful and that if you don't spank your children they will be rotten. There are still cases of male professors earning more than female and sexual harassment and exploitation in the workforce. There will always be passive and passive-aggressive people who say they like it and if you don't like it, don't participate. The only way that something changes, or at least becomes un-hidden, is through dissent. The purpose of this post is dissent so this practice is not hidden and does not become the norm.

You are comparing torture, sexual harassment and female exploitation to a scheduler offering to arrange a mentorship experience between someone who is more experienced in a task and less experienced in a task. To me, that is much more distasteful and ridiculous than GFKs email.

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login

GFK offered me an opportunity to work for free! I feel so honored.

Create an Account or Log In

Official List of Mystery Shopping Companies

Mystery Shopper Magazine