Commission Clawbacks

[hereticus]

Joy has asked whether I will fight this issue on her behalf. Des has also asked whether I feel able to raise the matter with Ross Kenney. Greenpesto (whoever he may be) has given his support to any one who wants to run with this topic.

Sorry to have to let you all down, but I don’t see this as my fight. Why, with all the abuse that has been directed personally at management through this forum, should I then raise my head above the parapet ?

This issue has already become too polarised. Too much bad feeling has been created by a small handful of advisors who have adopted destructive tactics to the extent that bridges cannot be rebuilt. The time for diplomacy on this issue passed many months ago and cannot be recovered.

Those amongst us with a military background will know what I mean by ‘choosing your battleground’. I do not see this battle as winnable, and I am not about to set myself up to walk into an ambush. In the words of San Tzu (Chinese General, 5th century BC), the winning general makes many calculations before the battle starts. Do we know haw many advisors have been affected by clawbacks ? Do we know what sort of sums of money are involved ? Do we have specific examples with full history of what happened ? Are the advisors who feel strongly on the issue prepared to stand up and be counted ? The answer is no on all counts ! So where is the ammunition ? These questions should have been answered before joining battle, but now it is too late.

Before the seminars in January I put in three weeks of solid work collating comments from this forum and preparing a detailed submission to management. I did not do it to court praise or gratitude. I did it because I felt we had been given an opportunity to have some input, because I cared that a concensus of everybody’s views should be fairly represented, because I felt that perhaps I had the skills to make a reasonable job of it, and because nobody else seized the initiative (though some surely helped me in the task). Some of the matters we raised at the seminars have indeed made a difference, but others have resulted in no change, and in one instance the resulting changes have been seen as detrimental. Because it was not a complete and wholesale success I have personally taken a lot of stick through this forum. I’ve been accused of selling out to management, of having a ‘pro-Hillary chip fitted, and of being Ross Kenney’s mouthpiece – mostly by advisors who won’t even declare themselves. Twenty three advisors attended the seminars but because I took a high profile stance I became the fall guy. I understand this, I do not bear any grudges or ill feeling, and I’ll do it again if I feel that it will make a difference, but I’m not sticking my neck out on this issue.

Clawbacks were stopped shortly after the seminars and, I believe, directly as a result of the seminars. The company understood that the practice was causing bad feeling. There has never been any admission that the practice is illegal, and no advisor (despite making open threats to do so) has chosen to test the legality. To my mind we achieved something worthwhile – we stopped a bad practice, it won’t happen again, and we have therefore resolved this issue for the future. Any outstanding disputes relating to the past are matters for those affected to negotiate themselves, either individually or by getting together to present their case. Unfortunately the most vocal of those affected are also the ones who choose to remain anonymous, who will not plead their case openly, and whose sole contribution to the debate has been offensive name calling, so why should I plead it on their behalf ?

There is a lesson to be learnt from all this. If we want to influence change in the future we have to maintain a dialogue with the company and we have to keep lines of communication open, which means that debate between us needs to be factual, constructive, and conducted in an adult manner. Personal abuse towards management, especially from behind the cloak of anonymity, does nothing to serve our mutual best interests.

[golfsthegame]

well said Hereticus we should all be gratefull for the work you have done on our behalf.

golfsthegame.

[RED]

Firstly, Did Hillary's stop doing this practice? If so when. I don't know because as I said earlier, it has not happened to me for a long time and even then it was only a few quid.

Secondly, is the amount that you lost in the past a lot of money. If not then you may have to decide is it worth getting all upset over especially if the practice of reducing commission has been stopped.

Thirdly, there seems to be quite a few who are upset enough to mention it frequently. May I suggest you get together and collectively approach Hillary's if it is still an outstanding problem for you.

Last but not least, Mike, Hereticus, has come in for a lot of stick for his so called friendship with Ross Kenny. I have even had e mails implying certain things. I have met Mike, he is as far as I am concerned a genuine bloke that does want to make things better not just for himself but for all advisor's alike and Hillary's.
I have seen him argue with Ross at a meeting.
If he has a good working and social relationship with Ross then that really is his business and no body and I mean no body should condemn him for that unless they have good solid grounds to do so.
Mike is not a mouthpiece for this forum and I do agree with his statement about personal remarks. There is no one more critical of Hillary's than I, but I never, ever make a strong personal remark or attack against any person, no matter how strongly I feel.
I can understand the frustrations we all have and the lack of movement from Hillary's to do any thing but if you were attacked verbally, would you want to know?.

Red

[JoY]

stonehills said:

Firstly, Did Hillary's stop doing this practice? If so when. I don't know because as I said earlier, it has not happened to me for a long time and even then it was only a few quid.

Secondly, is the amount that you lost in the past a lot of money. If not then you may have to decide is it worth getting all upset over especially if the practice of reducing commission has been stopped.

Thirdly, there seems to be quite a few who are upset enough to mention it frequently. May I suggest you get together and collectively approach Hillary's if it is still an outstanding problem for you.

Last but not least, Mike, Hereticus, has come in for a lot of stick for his so called friendship with Ross Kenny. I have even had e mails implying certain things. I have met Mike, he is as far as I am concerned a genuine bloke that does want to make things better not just for himself but for all advisor's alike and Hillary's.
I have seen him argue with Ross at a meeting.
If he has a good working and social relationship with Ross then that really is his business and no body and I mean no body should condemn him for that unless they have good solid grounds to do so.
Mike is not a mouthpiece for this forum and I do agree with his statement about personal remarks. There is no one more critical of Hillary's than I, but I never, ever make a strong personal remark or attack against any person, no matter how strongly I feel.
I can understand the frustrations we all have and the lack of movement from Hillary's to do any thing but if you were attacked verbally, would you want to know?.

Red

The amount I have lost from clawbacks is over £400. I sent a list to my FSM who checked it, and agreed I had lost that commission through no fault of my own.

I have asked when I will get it back, with NO response.

I thought this site was about us all helping each other and pulling together. 800 people having a voice etc...

You know........all for one and one for all??

I asked Hereticus because I thought he might be the "one" who might be able to get an answer for "all", not just me.

In my opinion, this site has failed to achieve anything because at the end of the end we are ALL out for number one. I include Hillarys as a compnay, Hillarys staff, and the advisors alike.

Sadly disallusioned.......

[phugly]

Mike has come in for a lot of stick from members of this forum because he dared to stand up and represent the views that were put forward. But Mike was not alone at the seminar. I was also present along with other advisors. I heard the same arguements and promises. I have also been "out" for quite a while. I am prepared to say what I think both to my FSM and to Ross K to their faces, and I have no fear of reprisals over anything I have to say. Those who wish to hide behind anonymous nicknames are free to do so for whatever reasons they think are justifiable but to offer personal insults from this position is just plain cowardice.

[hereticus]

jayandemm said:

I thought this site was about us all helping each other and pulling together. 800 people having a voice etc...

You know........all for one and one for all??

I asked Hereticus because I thought he might be the "one" who might be able to get an answer for "all", not just me.

In my opinion, this site has failed to achieve anything because at the end of the end we are ALL out for number one. I include Hillarys as a company, Hillarys staff, and the advisors alike.

Joy...sorry, but I think you have missed the point here.

I agree that £ 400.00 is a lot of money, a big hit, and Ireally do wish it could have been resolved. I also accept that you went about things the right way, through your FSM and a properly worded email to Ross Kenney, but I think by that time it was too late. A small minority had already declared war !

You asked yesterday if I could try diplomacy, and I replied that it is too late for that. This was not a way of turning my back on your dilemma, just a cold reality.

Diplomacy and negotiation are always the first recourse. Send in the diplomats to try to forge a solution to the problem and avoid all out war. Keep your troops in reserve - war is the last recourse and, in most cases, an admission of diplomatic failure. If you declare war from the outset, try to intimidate the opposition into submission, and wound them badly in the process, it is not possible to then turn round and say 'sorry about that, can we talk about it ?'

In the case of commission clawbacks war was declared by a few, was fought by hurling abuse and defamation, and did not even allow the other side the right of reply because they didn't know where the sniper fire was coming from. If your castle is under siege, what do you do - lower the drawbridge, tighten the defences, and hope that you can hold out the longest.

There might have been a time when discussion and negotiation could have resolved this issue, but the opportunity has long gone and, nearly nine months later, perhaps the matter shuld be dropped so that we can get on with working towards a better future rather than dwelling on past mistakes.

'All for one and one for all' is a pipedream because 800 advisors will have 800 different opinions, but this forum can work together, can learn from each other, can arrive at broad concensus, and has made progress, and we are not all out for number one.

[Augustus]

Hi Joy,
I'm sorry that you feel this forum has done nothing ! ( or as much as we have hoped )

I was a cross-roads a while back thinking the same thing, so I asked for feedback.

But the responces were generally positive.


You do still feel drawn to it daily ?


P.

[JoY]

admin said:

Hi Joy,
I'm sorry that you feel this forum has done nothing ! ( or as much as we have hoped )

I was a cross-roads a while back thinking the same thing, so I asked for feedback.

But the responces were generally positive.


You do still feel drawn to it daily ?


P.

Can't keep away!!! ;D ;D ;D

In a better mood now!!

Sorry...............

[dolly]

Hi all
The clawbacks havent stopped in way. If like i on fitting you find a minor fault but the customer is happy to keep the blind for a small discount (£10/£20). I then write on the invoive why i have done it and to say it avoids a DOR i still get the commission reduced for discounting.
Its still worth doing though as it saves you an unpaid visit back to swap blind.

[greenpesto]

Motters!!!

Can I also input here?

The problem is not that this site has done nothing ( because it has ) ... or ... that we have a go at Hillarys or those in management that represent it ... but rather the 'jibes' at each other that is this most disheartening.

It is this that has put me off contributing here lately more than anything else.
It is one likely reason why many don't contribute here for fear of attack from fellow Advisors.

Some newer contributors on this site appear to take offense very easily & are also quick to 'jibe' back themselves.
As for masks of anonymity ... we still have that right ... we should not feel pressured into changing that or to stop airing our feelings about the state of play at H/O.

Hillarys will find any excuse NOT to take part in discussions here because they don't have control.
So everyone may as well accept this fact.

Once Hillarys get their own web-site up and running then we'll see whether freedom of speech does really exist.

[hereticus]

dolly said:

Hi all
The clawbacks havent stopped in way. If like i on fitting you find a minor fault but the customer is happy to keep the blind for a small discount (£10/£20). I then write on the invoive why i have done it and to say it avoids a DOR i still get the commission reduced for discounting.
Its still worth doing though as it saves you an unpaid visit back to swap blind.

Dolly....I think I can clarify this point.

I do agree that if a discount is given for any reason, either by the advisor or by the service centre, then we still suffer the proportional reduction in commission. I think most of us would agree that this is not fair because invariably the reason for discounting is not due to our errors but rather to factory faults, quality problems, delayed deliveries, etc. This is a subject on which it would be interesting to get some input regarding legality, other company's practices, etc., and continue to pursue this with the company.

The reference to clawbacks, however, relates specifically to situations where the customer has paid, commission has been paid to the advisor, and then the customer subsequently complains about something and gets a partial refund. Hillarys then used to help themselves to the relevant advisor percentage by making a deduction from the next commission statement. This has most definitely been stopped following discussions at the advisor feedback seminars (unless, that is, anybody knows any different ?).

[hereticus]

greenpesto said:

Motters!!!

The problem is not that this site has has done nothing ( because it has ) ... or ... that we have a go at Hillarys or those in management that represent it ... but rather the 'jibes' at each other that is this most disheartening.

It is this that has put me off contributing here lately more than anything else.
It is one likely reason why many don't contribute here for fear of attack from fellow Advisors.

Some newer contributors on this site appear to take offense very easily & are also quick to 'jibe' back themselves.
As for masks of anonymity ... we still have that right ... we should not feel pressured into changing that or to stop airing our feelings about the state of play at H/O.

GP - you are absolutely right, though I interpret the interplay between ourselves as friendly banter rather than personal attack, and anybody who fears the cut and thrust of open debate is perhaps being oversensitive.

Yes, of course we should be criticising things that are wrong within the company, and seeking to work together to influence change, and long may we continue to do so. And anonymity is very definitely the right of anyone who for any reason wishes to retain it.

The problem I have been trying to get over is when somebody with anonymity uses it to direct abusive and slanderous personal remarks, whether towards a member of management or towards an advisor on this forum. If we are to retain, or regain, any credibility with the the company we really do need to draw a line under this sort of conduct.

[JoY]

hereticus said:

dolly said:

Hi all
The clawbacks havent stopped in way. If like i on fitting you find a minor fault but the customer is happy to keep the blind for a small discount (£10/£20). I then write on the invoive why i have done it and to say it avoids a DOR i still get the commission reduced for discounting.
Its still worth doing though as it saves you an unpaid visit back to swap blind.

Dolly....I think I can clarify this point.

I do agree that if a discount is given for any reason, either by the advisor or by the service centre, then we still suffer the proportional reduction in commission. I think most of us would agree that this is not fair because invariably the reason for discounting is not due to our errors but rather to factory faults, quality problems, delayed deliveries, etc. This is a subject on which it would be interesting to get some input regarding legality, other company's practices, etc., and continue to pursue this with the company.

The reference to clawbacks, however, relates specifically to situations where the customer has paid, commission has been paid to the advisor, and then the customer subsequently complains about something and gets a partial refund. Hillarys then used to help themselves to the relevant advisor percentage by making a deduction from the next commission statement. This has most definitely been stopped following discussions at the advisor feedback seminars (unless, that is, anybody knows any different ?).

I've had commission clawed back, ( a couple of weeks ago), because a customer's cheque bounced. When the customer paid again (incidentally a very good customer of mine who explained they had used the wrong account by mistake), I had the commission returned. The cheque not clearing was NOT my fault....so why was I to be penalised? Another point is that the money was just taken from me, without as much as a phone call from the finance department to let me know what was happening, or a reason for it on my commission statement.

[pyramid]

Me too Joy, similar circumstances except this was probably a stolen card, they had paid in full when chased up by the quotes team.
What really baffled me was if they were going to pay with a dodgy card why did they have 3 4 99 ?

[farmer]

phugly said:

Mike has come in for a lot of stick from members of this forum because he dared to stand up and represent the views that were put forward. But Mike was not alone at the seminar. I was also present along with other advisors. I heard the same arguements and promises. I have also been "out" for quite a while. I am prepared to say what I think both to my FSM and to Ross K to their faces, and I have no fear of reprisals over anything I have to say. Those who wish to hide behind anonymous nicknames are free to do so for whatever reasons they think are justifiable but to offer personal insults from this position is just plain cowardice.

Same here, Im known to Ross Kenney and John Risman now.

I still say we should all come out, i just can't see the problem.

No one has berated my f.s.m. current and previous, than me. Ask any of them. Fortunately maybe, i have not had leads taken away from me, and no other form of retribution either.

My critiscm is usually constructive, wanting the problems rectifying for the good of all.


I have had over £600 in commission clawed back off me over the years, none of it my fault, but when i think of the things i have got away with by manipulating the system then i have no further gripe with this issue. Life goes on.....


All that seems to be happenning now is , this forums members are turning on each other hence destroying all that is good with it.

I for one hope this doesn't destroy all the good work put in by people who know who they are !

We all have the right to stay annonymous of course, but i feel more would be done and achieved if we all knew who each other was, especially when it comes to Hillarys people.

we know who they are, shouldn't they know who we are.?