|
|
Post by silktown1 on Apr 29, 2006 23:57:51 GMT 1
JOHN RISMAN
you cannot ignore all these posts.
you should be motivating your workforce.
NOT DE-motivating
|
|
|
|
Post by owl on Apr 30, 2006 1:07:56 GMT 1
And i was beginning to think it was just me.
How reassuring to know we all feel the same way (apart from those who worked on our behalf on the seminars)
This Risman mailer needs urgent attention. If it is not withdrawn ( the £20 agent error) may i suggest we ALL take serious action collectively to save not only our livelihoods but the company itself.
These decisions were not introduced with any dialogue or consent with the very poeple who deliver the goods......us.
If this is only the first phase who knows what they will dictate to us in the second............ IF we allow them to.
On our own heads be it.
owl.
|
|
|
|
Post by tojaws on Apr 30, 2006 9:03:38 GMT 1
Hi Golfsthegame
Under your heading -
"If in business entirely on your own account the following will apply."
you missed an important point
When it's your own business the profits are also yours and they will normally be sufficient to fund insurance, damages, etc.
So unless Hillarys are prepared to raise our commission rates we are once again the losers.
|
|
|
|
Post by hereticus on Apr 30, 2006 12:47:49 GMT 1
OK – even I, with my eternal optimism that we are on the way forward, am getting the impression that the forum is fairly united in their concern on this issue. Even though we now have the greater clarity that we wanted, the details don’t seem to be generally acceptable and the changes being implemented obviously raise as many questions as they answer.
The subject of advisors paying for damage caused by their negligence seems to be the hottest issue and, whilst I generally trust the interpretation given to me verbally by Ross, there are definite concerns on this – especially the question of who will be ‘judge and jury’, the problem of unscrupulous customers, the extent of our financial exposure (there has to be a maximum per claim) and, in particular, Blind Wizard has made a very good point about insurers being honour bound to seek redress from third parties, which could leave us very exposed. I will not personally down tools from 8 May because, like Russell, in 14 years I can count the incidents of accidental damage on one hand, and all of them low value and none of them due to ‘clear negligence’, but management do need to do some more urgent thinking on this issue and, hopefully, delay implementation of this particular measure until properly clarified.
In terms of the general structure proposed there have been some good constructive postings, and I think Russell has made many of the points going through all of our minds, which I am sure that Ross and his team will pick up on and clarify further as a matter of urgency.
One point missed by all, and on which I have previously made representations to Ross Kenney, is the matter of a different advisor being sent in to resolve a problem, for which the service call charge paid to the second advisor will now be deducted from the first. I can see the logic, but who determines whether it is appropriate to send in a different advisor, and is the original advisor involved in this process. As far as I am aware I have never had another advisor sent in to one of my jobs but, and this is the key point, how would I know. I have often been asked to resolve another advisors problem and have usually taken the initiative myself of phoning the original advisor to get his side of the story first, only to find that he knows nothing about it. So we could see ‘phantom clawbacks’ taken from our commission which relate to problems that we have never even been made aware of. To my mind we should ALWAYS be given the opportunity to resolve our own problems. Even if, as sometimes happens, the customer has requested a different advisor, we should always be contacted for our side of the story before any judgements are made, discounts given, or other advisors sent in. The customer is not always right, some of them are downright unscrupulous, and requesting a different advisor is one way to avoid being found out. There needs to be a very clear policy and procedure on this point.
I do sympathise with Ross Kenney on all of this because I know that he is totally on board with the whole advisor feedback process, that he has been the primary instrument in promoting reforms, and that he has worked hard towards resolving a lot of the issues raised at the seminars, yet the first major initiative appears to have opened another can of worms. I’m sure he is reeling under the sheer weight of comment over the last couple of days but, equally, that he will recognise many of the good constructive points that have been made. Without doubt he will be addressing these issues as his priority on Tuesday morning and, whilst further input (especially if it is constructive) is good, I think we should now aim to give him a little breathing space.
|
|
|
|
Post by hereticus on Apr 30, 2006 12:51:22 GMT 1
Sorry, correction to my previous posting. I credited Russell with having summarised many of the points going through our minds but, checking back, I find it was actually Grey Van Mans posting that I had in mind. Apologies to you both for getting you confused.
|
|
|
|
Post by owl on Apr 30, 2006 13:10:05 GMT 1
They have had 3 months breathing space since the seminars and this is what they come up with.
All advisors who go to sales calls now are put under extra pressure as ANY MISTAKE will cost £20, which in many cases will out weigh the commission.
Would ALL H/O staff including production like to work under the same conditions.............. i think not.
Why should we suffer for our mistakes whilst others go unpunished for theirs......hardly fair is it.
Is this their idea of rallying the troops?
owl.
|
|
|
|
Post by JoY on Apr 30, 2006 13:19:53 GMT 1
Question If you were Hillarys would you... A. Send another advisor out to a service call and pay them £20 and then deduct £20 from the original advisor or B. Send the original advisor and pay him £20 full stop.  |
|
|
|
Post by scotton on Apr 30, 2006 13:22:36 GMT 1
Having read Mr Rismans letter I am some what disturbed. Many points have been raised regarding damage to customers premises. To go to any school or council property in my area you need a 10 million pound indemnity. The position that hillarys are now adopting leave us all not knowing where we stand and if something serious goes wrong will hillarys abondon ship. The cost of this indemnity is very expensive but it looks as if we are moving that way.
|
|
|
|
Post by desmorse on Apr 30, 2006 14:20:17 GMT 1
Some interesting figures coming out of Colwick lately. For those of you currently suffering 3/£99, think of this. Out of £99, the VAT man takes £14.74 and you take £14.53, leaving £69.73. Hillarys claim it costs £40 to generate a lead (some say £50). This does not cover any overheads associated with placing an order, just creating a lead. That leaves £29.73. According to JRs current letter, the average cost of making a blind is £46, making 3 blinds average £138. This leaves Hillarys with a net profit of ..... errr .. minus £108.27! Being a little disingenuous with the figures are we Mr Risman? Just putting out figures to justify the action? Watch out for phase 2, variable commission rates. As sure as god made little green apples, they ain't goin' up. Des - not Russel ;D |
|
|
|
Post by desmorse on Apr 30, 2006 14:33:42 GMT 1
We had this Hampshire a few years ago, and again, all it does it cost us money.
Customer care booked service calls to suit the customer without checking my postcode coverage. People like myself, who have 2 distinct areas to cover, found, say a PO14 service call, booked when I didn't have PO14 availability.
It was booked for an hour, regardless. I currently have a customer waiting for 1 louvre to be changed, no rush - any time I'm in the area. This will now be booked as a 1 hour service call. Even if they only book 15 minutes, this will stop CLG booking a lead.
Again, service calls were booked without regard to working patterns. I, like a previous poster, have times when I only sell, not fit. His was after 6pm, mine is Saturdays and Sundays. I had more service calls booked in on Sundays than Monday to Fridays combined. I totally refused to do these and had no end of arguments with CC dept. In the meantime, time was allocated in my diary and leads were lost.
In a time where FSMs are asking for more availability, Hillarys tie one behind our back yet again.
|
|
|
|
Post by JoY on Apr 30, 2006 15:37:34 GMT 1
As I sell and hubby fits, we have two diaries. A sales diary and a fit diary. I have requested all service calls are booked into the fit diary. (Hubby will then have to ring them all up to rebook to his convenience. )
This arrangement could be made for any advisor that wants to keep their sales and fits separate couldn't it?
It will then will not block up your sales diary with non urgent service calls, which stops you getting the sales you want to attend.
|
|
q
New Member
Posts: 18
|
Post by q on Apr 30, 2006 15:40:18 GMT 1
Where was the consultation on these proposals?
Surely in this so called new era of diaologue, these proposals should have been open to debate/discussion before we have to accept them.
I am afraid this is Hillarys talking the talk but NOT walking the walk.
No some of us are more confused than we were before.
Personally I feel these proposals to be a step backwards not forwards.
Finally who asked the FAQs?
|
|
|
|
Post by hereticus on Apr 30, 2006 15:54:08 GMT 1
Q asks "Finally, who asked the FAQs?"
Interesting point ! Not me, and I guess probably none of us.
Somebody has obviously tried to anticipate likely questions and present them as if they were real questions, so I guess this is another form of spin !
|
|
|
|
Post by gloryboy on Apr 30, 2006 16:49:35 GMT 1
this has to be one of the worst prepared documents i've read, gvm got it absolutely right, there are more questions raised than answered by this. it probably made complete sense to the 'yes men' sat in a warm comfy office with coffee and muffins! if only they'd had the decency and foresight to run it past some advisors first this whole shambles would have been avoided, and they could have had some real faq's instead of made up ones which repeat the main points they want highlighted. here's one for free, why the need to rush these changes through in less than a week? i'm all for changes and don't expect them all to suit everyone but if these are the hottest issues surely they need careful consideration before implementation and it is surely crass arrogance to enforce them onto us. when this lot are finished at hillarys perhaps they should consider careers in politics  |
|
|
|
Post by desmorse on Apr 30, 2006 17:34:47 GMT 1
As I sell and hubby fits, we have two diaries. A sales diary and a fit diary. I have requested all service calls are booked into the fit diary. (Hubby will then have to ring them all up to rebook to his convenience. ) This arrangement could be made for any advisor that wants to keep their sales and fits separate couldn't it? It will then will not block up your sales diary with non urgent service calls, which stops you getting the sales you want to attend. Certainly worth exploring, but not too sure how I would make it work. It's just me, I sell Sat & Sun, but sell or fit Mon-Thur. I don't want to have dedicated fit days. When I'm going through a quiet period, I want max. availability for quotes. I've already bastardised my diary to compensate for 90 minute bookings for conservatory sides. Now I've got to come up with another twist to overcome a half thought out idea that benefit Hillarys and screws me. I thought Hillarys were suppose to help me run a business, not be a hindrance |
|
