Hoping for another plaque? You seem pretty upset to me. I’m assuming it’s because you don’t like being ignored. I don’t see your contribution as something that adds to the conversation, so I won’t be responding to you again. Hope that doesn’t get you into another huff. Oh, and it’s ‘choking’ not ‘chocking.’

By Daniel Wiessner

(Reuters) -The U.S. Department of Labor on Tuesday issued a final rule that will force companies to treat some workers as employees rather than less expensive independent contractors, in a move that has riled business groups and will likely prompt legal challenges.

The rule is widely expected to increase labor costs for industries that rely on contract labor or freelancers, such as trucking, manufacturing, healthcare and app-based "gig" services.

Most federal and state labor laws, such as those requiring a minimum wage and overtime pay, apply only to a company's employees. Studies suggest that employees can cost companies up to 30% more than independent contractors.

The rule will require that workers be considered employees rather than contractors when they are "economically dependent" on a company. It does not go as far as wage laws in California and other states that place even greater limitations on independent contracting.

Business groups and Republican lawmakers strongly criticized the rule on Tuesday, saying it will cause millions of workers to lose opportunities to earn money and would create confusion that will spur costly litigation.

U.S. Senator Bill Cassidy, a Republican from Louisiana, said in a statement that he would introduce a resolution to repeal the rule. Cassidy said the rule would bolster labor unions' efforts to increase their membership, as independent contractors and freelancers cannot join unions.

The rule replaces a regulation by Republican former President Donald Trump's administration that had made it easier to classify workers as independent contractors. The new rule is likely to be challenged in court by trade groups and businesses.

Under the Trump era rule, workers who owned their own businesses or had the ability to work for competing companies, such as a driver who works for both Uber Technologies and Lyft, could be treated as contractors.

The new rule is set to take effect on March 11.

Acting U.S. Labor Secretary Julie Su during a call with reporters on Monday said the misclassification of workers as contractors rather than employees particularly harms low-income workers who would benefit the most from legal protections such as a minimum wage and unemployment insurance.

“A century of labor protections for working people is premised on the employer-employee relationship,” Su said.

Worker advocates and some Democratic officials praised the rule, saying it was necessary to ensure basic protections for workers.

"Worker misclassification also undermines law-abiding businesses that are forced to compete with dishonest employers who use misclassification to unfairly cut down on labor costs," U.S. Rep. Bobby Scott, a Democrat from Virginia, said in a statement.

POTENTIAL IMPACT ON 'GIG' WORKERS

The Labor Department has said the rule was designed to crack down on industries, including construction and healthcare, where misclassification of workers is common. But its potential impact on app-based delivery and ride-hailing services, whose business models depend on contract "gig" labor, has garnered the most attention.

The Labor Department said it would consider factors such as a worker's opportunity for profit or loss, the degree of control wielded by a company over a worker, and whether the work is an integral part of the company's business to determine whether a worker should be classified as an employee or contractor.

Business groups have said the long list of factors that could determine a worker's classification will create confusion and inconsistent results, which in turn could spur costly class actions alleging that workers were misclassified.

(Reporting by Daniel Wiessner in Albany, New York, Editing by Alexia Garamfalvi, Matthew Lewis, Emelia Sithole-Matarise and Chizu Nomiyama)

Minime corrects ServiceAward--it’s ‘choking’ not ‘chocking.’

Bob Comments-You are probably right, BUT, only probably.

In 1960, I enlisted and became a member of Naval Aviation. At that time, all lower rated personnel served a short time, usually three months, detached to less desirous duties for which they had not been schooled. As an E-3, mine was mess cooking and as an E-4, it was aircraft line duty. It was on the line where one of my many responsibilities was to assure the aircraft wheels had been properly chocked during high speed ground engine testing. SA could have been figuratively voicing an opinion.

I am aware I am possibly the only shopper with aircraft chocking experience, but many have probably done so with a car or truck.

Just before my teenaged dad joined the Navy during WWII, he was working at a cotton seed oil factory as a "cake knocker." It was on the draft card he filled out.

???? So I had to look it up. Apparently there was an iron press that squeezed the oil from the cotton seeds, leaving a thick layer of residue behind. This residue, called cake, was sold to farmers to feed animals. My dad's job was to use a long metal pole with a flat end, like a knife, to pound the cotton seed cake and knock it off the press.

Somehow the names of jobs/occupations were simple in the 1940s. It was because jobs were simpler. I don't even know whether "mystery shopper" was an occupation then.

I have noticed shops on IPSOS have really dropped off. I use to see 30 or 40 shops in my area, now I see less than 10. I don't know if it's because of the new year.

I chockle with laughter every time I read this thread. But I will contribute my point of view as I am a member of this open forum. OPEN is the key word. In any case, I live in California where several years ago there was endless discussion, including on this forum, regarding the feeling that the world of mystery shopping and every other gig employment was going to come to a screeching halt. But that did not happen. And for mystery shoppers, at least the companies that hire me as a contractor, we never met the definition of "employees" under the rules the state was trying to push through. California, if I remember correctly, was trying to re classify many "independent contractors" who were in jobs that were not at all independent. These people had jobs where their hours and days were often dictated to them. I do not get handed a schedule I have to adhere to as a mystery shopper, not does the msc tell me I have to work a minimum number of hours per time period. I don't even have time periods. I can come and go as I please. I do not have to apply for jobs I do not want. I don't even have to look over a schedule and ask not to be scheduled. I schedule myself.
These and other features keep us apart from the types of jobs the government seeks to rule are not independent contractor positions. It may be that the new Dept of Labor ruling will be broader than the previous attempts to bring more workers into employee status.

I don't want to be an employee of IPSOS. And I'll be so bold as to say, you shouldn't want to be one, either.

I had a negative experience with Ipsos, not in the context of mystery shopping, but during an interview for an employee position. The process involved six interviews spanning over 10 months. Initially informed of a hiring freeze, they later expressed readiness to hire, leading to additional interviews. Unfortunately, the offered payment fell significantly below the advertised salary of $89k, settling at $45k.

Moreover, they provided a start date that was ultimately disregarded. Upon inquiry, I was informed that they had ceased external hiring. I am dissatisfied with the treatment I received, and it is disheartening that my time was seemingly wasted. This experience has left me disappointed, but I also recognize it as a fortunate escape from a potentially unfavorable situation.

@PiggyBooboo wrote:

I had a negative experience with Ipsos, not in the context of mystery shopping, but during an interview for an employee position. The process involved six interviews spanning over 10 months. Initially informed of a hiring freeze, they later expressed readiness to hire, leading to additional interviews. Unfortunately, the offered payment fell significantly below the advertised salary of $89k, settling at $45k.

Moreover, they provided a start date that was ultimately disregarded. Upon inquiry, I was informed that they had ceased external hiring. I am dissatisfied with the treatment I received, and it is disheartening that my time was seemingly wasted. This experience has left me disappointed, but I also recognize it as a fortunate escape from a potentially unfavorable situation.

Wow. That's an eye opener! You may have dodged a bullet. Thank you for sharing your experience from a different perspective.

I get that it’s an ‘open forum, but does your response have a point? Act like you don’t care and they’ll continue to laugh at you and use you. They’re present here. Trust me on that one.
I’m sure there are decent schedulers and managers who don’t take advantage or act like they’re the sh*t because they’ve been entrusted with a litter power for the first time in their lives. But when you naysayers dismiss other’s experiences solely based on your own, it’s a clear indicator of your ignorant, black and white thinking, which doesn’t add to the conversation. Your complacency hurts the rest of us across the board - not just with Ipsos. It feeds the egos of the lousy, vindictive schedulers and managers who block you and do only what’s in their own best interest. They secretly lose thousands of dollars for their company. The big problem for Ipsos is all of that is well hidden because they cover for one another. Now that they’ve got the feds after them they’re going to have to wake up and smell the coffee. Their rep is in the sh*tr. Finally their abuses have led to putting their own jobs and the health of their company on the line. It’s coming folks. I give it 2 years. You’re welcome.

@sandyf wrote:

I chockle with laughter every time I read this thread. But I will contribute my point of view as I am a member of this open forum. OPEN is the key word. In any case, I live in California where several years ago there was endless discussion, including on this forum, regarding the feeling that the world of mystery shopping and every other gig employment was going to come to a screeching halt. But that did not happen. And for mystery shoppers, at least the companies that hire me as a contractor, we never met the definition of "employees" under the rules the state was trying to push through. California, if I remember correctly, was trying to re classify many "independent contractors" who were in jobs that were not at all independent. These people had jobs where their hours and days were often dictated to them. I do not get handed a schedule I have to adhere to as a mystery shopper, not does the msc tell me I have to work a minimum number of hours per time period. I don't even have time periods. I can come and go as I please. I do not have to apply for jobs I do not want. I don't even have to look over a schedule and ask not to be scheduled. I schedule myself.
These and other features keep us apart from the types of jobs the government seeks to rule are not independent contractor positions. It may be that the new Dept of Labor ruling will be broader than the previous attempts to bring more workers into employee status.

IPSOS no longer uses schedulers that reside in CA due to this. Amy S used to schedule for IPSOS. She no longer does. I could be wrong, but I do not think that any of their schedulers live in CA.

@BayShopper22 wrote:

@sandyf wrote:

I chockle with laughter every time I read this thread. But I will contribute my point of view as I am a member of this open forum. OPEN is the key word. In any case, I live in California where several years ago there was endless discussion, including on this forum, regarding the feeling that the world of mystery shopping and every other gig employment was going to come to a screeching halt. But that did not happen. And for mystery shoppers, at least the companies that hire me as a contractor, we never met the definition of "employees" under the rules the state was trying to push through. California, if I remember correctly, was trying to re classify many "independent contractors" who were in jobs that were not at all independent. These people had jobs where their hours and days were often dictated to them. I do not get handed a schedule I have to adhere to as a mystery shopper, not does the msc tell me I have to work a minimum number of hours per time period. I don't even have time periods. I can come and go as I please. I do not have to apply for jobs I do not want. I don't even have to look over a schedule and ask not to be scheduled. I schedule myself.
These and other features keep us apart from the types of jobs the government seeks to rule are not independent contractor positions. It may be that the new Dept of Labor ruling will be broader than the previous attempts to bring more workers into employee status.

IPSOS no longer uses schedulers that reside in CA due to this. Amy S used to schedule for IPSOS. She no longer does. I could be wrong, but I do not think that any of their schedulers live in CA.

This forum and my response was about shoppers, not about schedulers. I have no clue as to their work rules or where they live.

It may seem like a joke if someone hopes to get repaid what they feel they have lost but the company won't feel it is a joke when you consider the entire suit. The problem is having all the proof saved by multiple people and finding a few owed a good sum of money. Most people stop shopping with companies that don't pay they don't let it run up into a large sum.

There is a website I am signed up with that offers info on multiple class action suits & frequently asks for info on possible suits. topclassactions.com

@sandyf wrote:

This forum and my response was about shoppers, not about schedulers. I have no clue as to their work rules or where they live.

Clearly.

Shoppers were classified as IC's before the CA bill passed.
Schedulers were classified as IC's before the CA bill passed.
Shoppers were not re-classified as employees - thus, no change.
Schedulers were re-classified as employees - thus, no more schedulers for IPSOS in CA.
.

@Minime wrote:

Hi All ~ I’m a seasoned mystery shopper who has been burned by Ipsos one too many times. I’ve read many of your complaints and it’s become apparent to me that I’m not the only one who has been cheated. I’m a logical, analytical thinker who can admit fault when I make an error. I’m willing to learn from mistakes and compromise when I don’t live up to job pay standards. I’m a perfectionist by nature and as a result get 10 ratings for shops I perform across the board with a variety of companies I’ve sub-contracted with over the years.

What I’m not willing to accept is when I perform a shop to the letter and it gets ‘returned’ for reasons that are not included in the company’s own guidelines for the shop. I’m also not willing to accept when a shop is being blocked from submission, then later reported as late and expunged from my portal with no proof it ever existed. I’m also no longer willing to accept the stonewalling that follows, from a shady, phantom company who hides behind the bullies they employ who lay false blame in order to cheat their shoppers of their rightful pay. As many of you are aware, there’s no way to reach their corporate offices to report abuse or theft of service.

I’ve been treated like a sucker for putting my faith in this company. I’m disabled and have to find ways to support myself in preparation for an upcoming surgery. My life is hard, but I always show respect and kindness in dealing with people. When I get kicked in the teeth, as I have with this company, a part of me wants to fight to ensure that the abuse, fraud and treason will end with me, and not be visited upon the next unsuspecting person. Not fighting a monster emboldens and them to continue this kind of behavior.

Although there are numerous complaints about this company all over the internet, most people don’t have the will or resources to combat the injustices perpetrated against them. I believe together we can create something this company least expects if it’s done the right way, with the right legal representation. It could amount to an unexpected windfall for us victims, as it has with others who have been able to expose these ‘fat cat’ companies who think they don’t have to follow the rules.

I’ve opened this thread to brainstorm with other like-minded shoppers who have been cheated and defrauded of pay that they have rightfully earned. If there are enough responses I will provide info on what can be done collectively to take action. It can be a multi-prong approach that includes complaints to government entities, local courts and a class action lawsuit if there are enough participants. Verbal testimony is often accepted as proof, especially when your complaints go into a ‘company contact’ email vacuum. Many of us have saved our proof which collectively can reveal patterns and trends they use to falsely reject shops, refuse to pay, refuse to respond, etc.

Hoping people will share their experiences, however small or complex. No need to reveal personal info. This is our forum to vent thanks to the auspices of this website. Let’s do it!

I have had no issues with them. They pay quicker than every other MSC I have worked with. I have done hundreds of shops for them with zero problems. They review the reports quickly. I'd be happy to testify - in their favor.

It only takes one or two schedulers or editors to make it hard on everyone. I worked in aerospace for 30 years and I've seen bad employees, supervisors and managers. Sadly some are protected by friends they have in the company.

‘I have had no issues with them. They pay quicker than every other MSC I have worked with. I have done hundreds of shops for them with zero problems. They review the reports quickly. I'd be happy to testify - in their favor.‘

Lol! I like your post the best sparky, I’m sure you’d be a key player.
Thanks for proving my point about the linear thinking. It’s all about you. Got it.