New advisor payments !!

[gloryboy]

if i am only to be paid on the second dor then i will raise a dor as normal then once i've received replacement raise a second, this way i will receive payment for every one!

[RED]

gloryboy said:

if i am only to be paid on the second dor then i will raise a dor as normal then once i've received replacement raise a second, this way i will receive payment for every one!

Gloryboy
Sorry to pee on your bonfire but this will not be possible.
Hillary's will know that the system is open to some sort of abuse and will do the usual and ring the customer before payment to you under the guise of customer relations. I would imagine that if you had ordered a fictional dor just to claim the original payment you may find yourself being billed for the actual price of the original blind cost.
Dont wish to be the harbinger of doom but thats it in a nutshell.

Red

[JoY]

As I see it, Gloryboy meant...

When you get a genuine DOR, and the replacement arrives, he will check it VERY carefully before taking it out to the customer, and if it is STILL NOT PERFECT...then he will send it back on the next van to be DOR'd again.

Am I right?

The customer gets a call and confirms that the blind was indeed c**p, but it has now been replaced by the very nice man from Hillarys. The advisor then gets paid his £20.(Which incidentally bearly covers the cost of the 2 extra trips involved. We are not going to MAKE money on this new payment.... just get our costs covered.

[antony]

fevered brow
we all require some clarification regarding any indemnity for damage and liability is this still covered by Hillarys insurance from May the 8th.
What happens if a valance falls down on an Antique on wooden venitian fitted many moons ago.
As regarding a second opinion this should be the responsibilty of Fsm accompanied by the other agent to insure fair play!!!!!
If a service call is booked to our diary let us hope it is clearly identified as such.

[alcli01957]

Having read the comments from start to finish & reviewing the letter from John Risman over again & again I would suggest that as there are still many grey areas that this move should be suspended until greater clarification is made.
In attending the forum in January I knew that moves would have to be made both ways & not all would happen at once, however more discussion is needed to remove the grey spots. Having advisors frightened to go on calls & fittings is not progressive & the comments made on post 42 by Hereticus make a lot of sense. A degree of shoot first & ask questions later is no good & further dialogue rather than bang, this is the new regime with only a weeks notice is poor.
Further to the PL issue, customers are provided by Hillarys, training of advisors are provided by Hillarys, leads are supplied & booked by Hillarys, everything runs round the same theme. We advisors go into a customers home as a representative of Hillarys, we show them company information on Hillarys, sell the history & product. Part of that history & backup is to ensure the customer they have made the best choice & to top it all have a guarantee that is a full no quibble guarantee. The company takes responsiblity for product, training,customer base & guarantee, how can the liability be taken out of the equation. Can we have an extra 15 minutes added to our call time so customers can clear the way so we don't catch anything with our bulky bag we are told to take in to every call, then the same when we go to fit with our tool kit, product etc. Removal of part or all of the public liability will leave the company as open as ourselves & under law may well be illegal to operate, this needs clarification from a business lawyer.
Ross, simple strategy: GET ALL FSM's TO SEND OUT A TEXT TO SUSPEND THE 8TH START DATE UNTIL FULL CLARIFIACTION HAS BEEN MADE & AGREEMENT ACCEPTED BOTH WAYS.
HELL, WE HAVE TRADED FOR 35 YEARS AS WE HAVE & THE COMPANY HAS ALWAYS PROGRESSED SO WHAT DIFFERENCE WILL ANOTHER MONTH OR TWO TO GET THINGS EXACTLY RIGHT MAKE?

[kakalanka]

Here goes...... I'm going in........

I get the impression that 3 for £99 is run as a loss-leader for a number of reasons. They would include: keeping production working, the call centre staff 'busy', all so that staffing is kept at a level to support busier, more productive and therefore, more profitable periods. As I'm sure we all agree, this costs advisors who are supporting and fulfilling the promotion on behalf of Hillarys - it is not always possible to sell-up and we are, in essence, subsidising the promotion.

The new advisor payments are obviously to be financed by redistributing the current system. No concession here then and, as that system already is a serious cost to us, we are subsidising it.

Advisors, although promoted as the most influential part of any Hillarys success, are the most disposable element within the system and, as such, do not have any real influence on Hillarys policy. We are easily replaceable (no rights), underpaid (when taking the unpaid aspects of the job into account), and treated with contempt at times.

If there are any good intentions behind the new payments I struggle to see what they are. Aspects which seem to be an improvement, when thought through, only serve to undermine my ability to run my Hillarys business for the benefit of both sides e.g., no insurance cover, service calls imposed on my diary availability, 1 mis-measure fine equates to £140 in sales, or more if Advisor time and costs are included, et al. These elements alone undermine the Advisors job and seems to show a complete lack of concern or respect for our position. If there are poorly performing Advisors to whom these costs are supposedly directed then may I suggest they are gently shown the door if they are letting the rest of us down.

Now I'm guessing that the company response to my obvious displeasure will be that I have over-reacted to the mailer and that statistics show that we will be the beneficiaries with Hillarys incurring the greater cost. My argument would be that we are not looking to be thrown a few crumbs to keep us quiet but that the situation should not have occurred in the first place and should be eliminated/resolved once and for all.........pay us more for self generated leads, give us a fair profit on ridiculously priced promotions (you can charge what you like, but do not expect us to pay for it), accept that we are conscientious in our efforts to make a proper living wage from this business whilst representing Hillarys to our best abilities.

So please do not go "live" with it on the 8th, but ask what the real impact is going to be and how best a resolution can be found. I know it is not possible to satisfy all Advisors - my concerns are not necessarily as important to some other Advisors and vice versa, but at least lets try and sing from the same hymn sheet.

This is unavoidably a negative post but I would add that I actually like and enjoy this job and wish to continue doing so. I believe that this must be a genuine attempt to resolve legitimate Advisor concerns but proper resources have not been allocated. To do so properly will cost Hillarys money but, using the analogy we are often given, get this right and it will more than pay for itself. A happy, motivated, fairly-paid, well-trained, respected and enthusiastic Advisor work force will more than financially compensate for any perceived cost increase.

I made it............

[farmer]

gloryboy said:

if i am only to be paid on the second dor then i will raise a dor as normal then once i've received replacement raise a second, this way i will receive payment for every one!

nice thinking gloryboy.

If you think about it there are ways around these issues.
Being loyal to Hillarys in the past, so much so that i have cost myself money. that is no longer the case.

I WOULD LIKE IN WRITING BY E-MAIL FAX OR LETTER, BY TUESDAY TEATIME EXPLANAITION TO HOW WE ACTUALLY STAND AS REGARDS THIS LIABILTY ISSUE.
If i do not hear anything by then, the conservatory roof i am due to measure on thursday, will be cancelled. So whatever Louisa, and Ross make out of that, then that is your loss.

So hopefully you will read this and get back to me.

[pyramid]

Nice post Kakalanka. The only thing I can add is the apparently poor quality control. Addressing known issues would stop most of the DOR's. e.g. 3.5'' and 5'' louvres on the same rail is indefensible,and most famously, is the split balls fiasco- a known defect- presented as a problem with the tension, passed on at no recompense to the advisers.

[grumperbear]

l go away for the Bank holiday weekend, only to return to JR letter and 7 pages on the forum.

Nice to see new people posting. (Wish it was happier news)

l have read the letter once and read the thread from start to finish. lts another sad day at Hillarys. Certainly not moving in the right direction.

[BlindWizard]

As said in my post on Saturday I was going to email Mr John Risman.
I think this is such an important issue to all of us that I am posting a copy of my email below.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
To Mr John Risman
Copies to:-
[e-mail] (as requested in letter)
Mr Ross Kenny
Ms Jacqueline Hollinshead (FSM, on holiday till 8th May)
Mr Roger Morris (FSM covering Jacqueline Hollinshead)
Posted to AdvisorOnline Forum (I would not normally copy a personal letter but issues raised are relevant to all Advisors and not personal to me)

Dear Mr Risman

I was both angered and disappointed in receiving your letter dated 27th April 2006 addressed to all Advisors. The anger has subsided but the disappointment will last and de-motivate for quite awhile. My disappointment is that after the Company/Advisor Forums, the stated commitment that communications & consultation will improve and after a wait of three months that I receive a document that substantially alters my contract with Hillarys, gives me 4 working days notice and, in my opinion, is to the detriment of Advisors.

My biggest issue and the most urgent is the change in liability to damage in customers homes from Hillarys to the Advisor and this what I am primarily writing to you about. I have also included an appendix with my comments regarding the rest of the points to give you a complete picture of how I feel. I am unable to operate under the new contractual terms until either I have purchased the necessary insurance or Hillarys change their stance on this issue, I will therefore not be fitting any blinds from Monday 8th May until this is resolved.

Background: I have worked for Hillarys for 1.5 years and have had no claims against Hillarys for damage. I have caused damage three times, all being a small amount of facing plaster coming off when drilling into the lintel close to the front edge (when customers request they wanted the blind away from the window or that the recess was very shallow). On two occasions I plastered the small area and the third I gave the customer £25 off (I consider a deduction of the commission lost, even double it, would be fair), all 3 customer were very happy with the service I gave and 2 have purchased more blinds from me since. I have experienced claims against Hillarys when sorting out other Advisors errors from 8 holes in a patio door (I believe the plastic surgeon charges £30 a hole) to a new conservatory roof !!

I am unwilling to work in customers property without adequate protection against claims for property damage, Hillarys are obviously also unwilling to do so and that is why they have insurance cover. The changes to my contract making me liable for any damage means that I have to arrange adequate cover which will incur additional expense and need to do this in the next 4 working days. I am unwilling to do this, even if I was willing to take on the extra expense, as I envisage that the initiative has not been thought though and may be rescinded at a later date leaving me with unnecessary insurance cover at my cost. Any responsible business would not undertake any form of building work without proper insurance and I presume you are not promoting for us to do so either and therefore expect all Advisors to purchase the necessary insurance.

The revised payment structure states "Full costs to be paid by the Advisor when he/she is clearly negligent", this wording certainly meets your objective of clarity being that the FULL costs are paid by the Advisor. The FAQ section states that the equivalent amount paid by Hillarys will deducted from commission but then says if significant enough to be insurable the settlement will be negotiated with the FSM, this is not clear and leads to ambiguity. Is the negotiation regarding the payment terms or about the amount ? What is "significant" ? My experience of FSMs has been they have very little scope to make their own decisions therefore you must have produced guidelines for them, are you willing to make these available to Advisors ? My other question is that as the new contractual terms state "Full costs to be paid by the Advisor" then, albeit not being an insurance expert, doesn't this mean the insurance company can claim against the Advisor after paying out Hillarys ?

Mr Ross Kenny posted on the Advisors on-line forum "I can assure you that there is no change in your insurance cover, but there is an excess on the policy that Hillarys has historically paid. Going forward we expect the advisor to make a contribution to the payment to this excess when it is due to the advisor not taking care". There clearly is a change in the insurance cover as far a an Advisors is concerned - they are responsible personally ! It's good of Mr Kenny to take time over bank holiday to post but a post on an open forum changing your contractual letter is not valid and does not effect the position. I am surprised that this change was not thought though and these comments were not part of the original document, my only conclusion is that Hillarys wanted it to be unclear with the legal responsibility completely on the Advisor.

This issue needs to be dealt with as soon as possible because as stated I will not fit blinds from 8th May without the necessary insurance cover against the liability of damage to customers property. I will continue to do sales calls as your document states "due to poor fitting" but I do require confirmation that we are covered during sales calls against damage (not that I have done any but wielding a measuring stick whilst measuring a large window can be precarious !!).

I enjoy working for Hillarys but if you feel that I am being unreasonable regarding this matter and because I will not accept these new terms wish to terminate my contract with Hillarys then so be it. I will fit my outstanding blinds subject to being covered for property damage as we are today or will pass them to another advisor but will expect full commission. I also would reserve that right to claim loss of earning due to the short notice of the change to contractual terms. I would hope it doesn't come to this but I'm sure you can understand that I can't leave myself to uninsured claims, I am due to fit 4 Conservatory Roofs in the next few weeks and I would certainly not consider these without full cover.

Please could I have a reply as soon as possible because I will need to contact the customers due for fitting after 8th May to postpone if this is not resolved.

Regards, Duncan

Duncan J Harris
Hillarys Local Advisor
Hillside / 114-915


Appendix:-

Comments regarding the rest of the points. Many of these are of little issue within the scheme of things but I do not believe that the net effect addresses many of the issues produced from the forum in January.

1. Base Commission - Why should this include the first DOR if it is a Hillarys' error, Advisors are not allowed the first mis-measure if it is their fault.

2. Additional payments to the Advisor - Payment for DORs being Hillarys error is a good step in the right direction but could be higher say £20 as this would probably cover the true costs of the Advisor. Service Calls are quoted "per job", if the Advisor has to visit twice (once to ascertain the problem and then to return to fit/rectify) then £10 per visit doesn't cover Advisor's true costs. If service calls are booked by customer service dept directly into Advisor's diaries you must expect reduction in availability for sales calls. I, and I believe most other advisors, fit service calls into either dead spots in our diary where no sales calls have been booked or do them outside normally availability. We want to cover as many sales calls as possible as Hillarys I'm sure want us to.

3. Payments deducted from Advisors - I have had very few mis-measures because I take care. As mentioned before if Hillarys expect Advisors to rectify the first DOR due to Hillarys error then why is an Advisor expected to pay for his first error ? Almost tripling the charge appears to be high when our prices are lowering. A loss will be made by the Advisor on any orders less than £136 (I won't go on about 3 for £99 offers)
Think I have covered the issue of damage to property in this letter !!!

4. Discount Invoices/Cancellations - Over the past 1.5 years I've worked for Hillarys I have not had any cancellations or discounts due to complaints. You seem to have covered "claw-back" if discount is given after full payment is made but I do not understand why the Advisor is penalised if discount is given before final payment is made if it is due to a Hillarys' error. I would have thought the majority of discounts are given because of late delivery or the blinds have had to be DORed at original fit, both scenarios resulting in the customer not paying till satisfied and discount agreed. If my understanding is right commission will only be paid on the amount the customer finally paid therefore, even though it was not the Advisors fault, the Advisor will receive reduced commission.

5. Miscellaneous - I know many Advisors have been unhappy that we pay for the paper where we didn't pay for order pads. I agree as Hillarys must be making a substantial saving not producing order pads but the saving to advisors of say £every month or two doesn't outweigh the rest of the proposals.

I would also comment that if another advisor has to attend a service call to rectify the original Advisors error, the original advisor should only be charged £20 I they have been given adequate the opportunity to rectify the problem first themselves.

[jerry]

Reference the supposedly new deal

write , email your fsm quickly
Time for hillarys to be fair or learn the hard way..either

1) advisor first mistake dor is free and a Hillarys first dor is free..

2) if we are charged for dor ,then hillarys pay same price for their dor

It's called treating people fairly...



Hillarys don't know the number of actual dor's there are currently because we put them right..
vertical headrails, metal venetian , wood venetians in particular cords not run correctly the list goes on...So just imagine now that , due to this unfair and very inane memo we STOP PUTTING their fo pahs right and dor everything and i mean EVERYTHING ..then the number of multiples that they will pay out will sort this problem ..BECAUSE FINANCIALLY IT WILL COST THEM BIG TIME .so unless THIS UNFAIR NEW DEAL is changed pdq i suggest you all dor everything , and to hell with the fish weights thats a production / design problem and it's their problem not yours. so dor those as well..

. Sorting this out " our way" to their new rules could have agreat effect...they might just see the light and start doing quality control checks. on everything and get things right as they are under the impression that their fopahs are less than 3% which to them is acceptable, but then we know it's a hell of alot more dont we , .all this guff about checking wood venetians was a pack of lies do they think we are stupid.

So lets play their new rules, you fix nothing and dor everything lots of £15 for them to pay out.....................
have fun all we might get them to be fair yet!!!!!!

J

[mendipmagpie]

Well conveyed Blindwizard.
Thanks for posting this on the site and I believe you have the backing of most of us. I for one suport you and I think maybe this would be a good time to find out just how many others feel the same.

MM

[glen]

Jerry / blindwizard

Well said agree with all you have said, Mr Risman IMPORTANT INFORMATION FROM ALL you have just shoved the shaft further up our arses and created me thinks a hornets nest answers on a post card please

I rely on Hillarys for a living and I normally enjoy the job, but where do we draw the line and say enough is enough, service calls being booked in, 6 slots for bloody conservatory, 8 slots for waste of time shutter lead, 6 slots for a poxy awning without price list JESUS Man lets at least act professional

Oh and me selling a 3 for £99 earning £14 and being find £20 or more thru improper liability cover.THEN 2 months later all of a sudden you deduct £200 for example because someone else says it was my fault GET A LIFE
Glen

[greenpesto]

I was going to rattle off a long speech ... but 'b0llocks' to that ... you've all said it all anyway!!!

This has only furthered the feeling of mis-trust that we all feel towards Hillarys.

As a company that provides a 'service' it MUST have adequate PL Insurance. The contract is with Hillarys & the customer & so this cover must be supplied by Hillarys. The 'Buck' stops there.

The impact of the Risman letter is high .... it must be! .... how many new people posting on here are now showing their disgust?
It can't now be said it's the same old moaners!!!

I will warn you all now ... we have been promised phase 2 of this mess very soon & it is to include a revised commission structure according to Mr JR.

THAT WILL BE A TOTAL C0CK UP ... & IT WON'T BE IN OUR FAVOUR .... YOU WAIT & SEE!!!

If we had management that understood 'SALES' and understood how to deal with 'PEOPLE' running the company rather than 'half soaked accountant idiots' with undeserving 'ego's' then we would not be in this mess!!!!!!

'Number crunching' & 'stiffing' their work force is counter productive!!!

Whatever way you look at this job it is about dealing with PEOPLE ( whether they are selling or buying ) & NOT numbers!!!!

The sooner Hillarys realise that then the sooner we can move on & make money for all concerned!!!!

[desmorse]

Following BW lead, I've also emailed Ross Kenney, my FSM, and copied John Risman

I'm sure you're all aware of the reaction to the weekend mailer, but I would like some clarification on the following points, hopefully without getting too emotional.
1) £15/multiple DOR raised. (1st included in commission) If I have 4 blinds wrong on first fit, is this 1 or 4 DORs? Do I get £45 or not? Or is it only if 1 of these 4 is wrong again on subsequent fit?
2) £15/service call within guarantee Hillarys error. Can't think of any instance where Hillarys would accept it's their error after, say 9 months. There is already an assumption that any blind DOR'd after 28 days (may have figure wrong) is an advisor error.
3) £20/Service call within guarantee, other advisor. So if I have to to do 2 calls, 1 to check and re-order, 1 to fit, am I getting £20/job or £20/call? Currently I'd book that as 2 hours and get £25. I'm not doing 2 calls for £20 and taking a 20% pay cut. This isn't an ad hoc case - this is normal practice. What is the payement for other advisor service calls when out of normal area, as I've done 2 of these recently?
4) Service call outside guarantee - small service call charge £15-£20. Fine as long as Hillarys staff stop telling everyone £15 fixed price.
5) Mis-measures £20/blind. Funny how when in Hillarys favour it's categorically per blind, when in our favour ambiguous! In principle, I accept taking responsibility for my own errors, but John Risman doesn't seem to want to take responsibility for his, or his organisation. If Mr Risman can accept errors from his company he should be able to accept the odd one from me. This penalises the large selling advisor, I sold 219 blinds last month, surely I should be allowed 3 mismeasures before being fined?
6) Damage to be paid for by advisor where clearly negligent. Who determines that a) damage was caused by advisor, and b) due to negligence? In my many years with Hillarys, I've never known anyone from customer servcices to ring me to clarify a query or complaint from a customer. They just throw money at them to get rid of them.
7) Large claims to be negotiated with FSM. What constitutes large? £100, £1,000, £10,000? What is my liability? £1,000,000 - £10,000,000?
8) Commission clawbacks after invoice paid. This only addresses a tiny minority of clawbacks. Most discounts are given due late delivery of product, especialy at Christmas, or mutiple DOR's due to manufacturing errors. Any discount given due to Hillarys error should be at Hillarys cost, not mine.
9) Service calls booked in to diarys. This was tried in Hampshire a few years ago. All it does it reduce our availabilty for sales calls and increase our mileage and fuel costs. Most service calls can be done whilst in the area in a matter of minutes. Booking it in to the diary will mean special calls and a loss of 1 hour availabilty. I also found I had more service calls booked in my diary on a Saturday and Sunday than Monday to Friday combined. I do not, and will not, do service calls or fits at weekends. This is when I see couples together and do most of my selling


John Risman says in his letter "Our ultimate aim is to improve our working relationship with you ..........". Followed by 6 un-numbered pages (wasn't actually sure what order to read them in) of THIS IS WHAT'S HAPPENING AND IT STARTS ON ....... Sorry Mr Risman, but if you really wanted to improve your relationship with us, shouldn't you have floated some of these ideas out and got a reaction, rather than presenting a woolly-worded fait accompli?

regards,


Des Morse
114-059