@Indastruktable wrote:

While it’s true that in the real world, bargaining power often depends on demand and supply, that doesn’t mean we should simply accept unfavorable terms because ‘there’s always someone else willing to take the job.’ Just because certain industries or roles have limited leverage doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t strive for fairer treatment. It’s not about expecting a ‘perfect world’—it’s about pushing for a more equitable one.

But you DO have the right to deny unfavorable terms by not accepting the job. Workers do not have that right, you are hired as worker, you do what the employers tell you to do even when you do not like it, as long as it isn't threatening you life, or illegal.

@ wrote:

In mystery shopping, the issue isn’t just about accepting or rejecting lowball offers—it’s about ensuring that when we do the work, we’re compensated fairly for it. The risk you’re describing—‘high risk, high reward’—is part of running a business, but that risk should come with fair compensation for services rendered. It’s not unreasonable for independent contractors to expect payment for completed work, and when companies routinely reject shops without fair cause, it’s an abuse of the contractor model, not just a ‘risk of business.’

It is mostly about accepting and rejecting offers tho. Getting paid or not is a separate issue. And that is the same right both workers and business owner have, except between business you resolve the issue via legal system, and for workers you did that by department of labor, and possibly legal afterward. And no one is denying that on this. But do you also know that part of the risk a business owner has to take is that they did their job and not getting paid? It happens way more often than you'd imagine.

@ wrote:

Your suggestion to ‘equip yourself with different skillsets and qualify for high pay jobs’ is sound advice in many fields, but not entirely applicable to mystery shopping. The majority of shops are based on following preset guidelines, not developing unique skills. Many of us who do this work already bring professionalism, punctuality, and attention to detail to the table, but the reality is that the work is structured in a way that limits the amount of skill differentiation.

if you only here for the main one here, that only rely on you click on yes and no button, then I agree with you, but that's also reason why it is low pay. The high end ones require you to do paragraphs after paragraphs of evaluations. i wonder if you ever encounter those.

@ wrote:

When it comes to workers versus business owners, I agree that the risks and rewards are different, but the risk of being a small business or independent contractor doesn’t mean we have to accept systemic mistreatment. Pushing for better treatment, like enforcing pay protections and creating a more balanced power dynamic between MSCs and shoppers, isn’t about wanting a perfect situation—it’s about ensuring that contractors aren’t taken advantage of by companies who hold all the cards.

LMAO...systemic....I love the word systemic..All liberals love using the word systemic and pretend itself as a victim. I am sure majority of people do get pay on schedule and fairly, there's always a few hip ups here and there, but a minority thing does not need to be magnified as if it happens 98% of the time and "demand government incolvement"

@ wrote:

As for your comment about being careful what you wish for, it’s not unreasonable to push for policies that prevent companies from exploiting freelancers. Fair treatment isn’t a ‘nightmare’—it’s the foundation of a healthy business environment. Many industries have evolved through regulations that protect both sides, and mystery shopping shouldn’t be any different. We can improve the system without ruining the flexibility that many of us value in this line of work. It’s not about stifling business with overregulation—it’s about ensuring that everyone gets what they’re owed for the work they do.

Sure, California pushed for $20 minimum wage for fast food workers "to prevent companies from exploiting workers", the end result of that restaurants shutting down and closing, resulting with more people who now get $0 pay instead of $20, and jacking the price of fast food so that Mcdonald's french fries supplier has to slash jobs due to decline in French Fries sales.

California has also set laws restricting insurance companies on their policy pricing increase to "protect homeowners", and the end result of that is insurance companies are now terminating policies for home owners among California, and refusing to write any new policies for new home owners, leaving home owners with no homeowners insurances.

Oh, In NY restaurant are now using internet to outsource cashier jobs to South East Asia instead of hiring someone from the US due to "minimum wage increase", yet another "protective act" from the democrats

Obamacare (Affordable care Act) cause health insurance to increase that no one is affording it, while no clinics wants to accept patients with obamacare due to the low payout from the policies.

Need me to give out more examples?

Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 10/08/2024 09:50PM by kisekinecro.

@kisekinecro wrote:

But you DO have the right to deny unfavorable terms by not accepting the job. Workers do not have that right, you are hired as worker, you do what the employers tell you to do even when you do not like it, as long as it isn't threatening you life, or illegal.

It is mostly about accepting and rejecting offers tho. Getting paid or not is a separate issue. And that is the same right both workers and business owner have, except between business you resolve the issue via legal system, and for workers you did that by department of labor, and possibly legal afterward. And no one is denying that on this. But do you also know that part of the risk a business owner has to take is that they did their job and not getting paid? It happens way more often than you'd imagine.

if you only here for the main one here, that only rely on you click on yes and no button, then I agree with you, but that's also reason why it is low pay. The high end ones require you to do paragraphs after paragraphs of evaluations. i wonder if you ever encounter those.


LMAO...systemic....I love the word systemic..All liberals love using the word systemic and pretend itself as a victim. I am sure majority of people do get pay on schedule and fairly, there's always a few hip ups here and there, but a minority thing does not need to be magnified as if it happens 98% of the time and "demand government incolvement"

Sure, California pushed for $20 minimum wage for fast food workers "to prevent companies from exploiting workers", the end result of that restaurants shutting down and closing, resulting with more people who now get $0 pay instead of $20, and jacking the price of fast food so that Mcdonald's french fries supplier has to slash jobs due to decline in French Fries sales.

California has also set laws restricting insurance companies on their policy pricing increase to "protect homeowners", and the end result of that is insurance companies are now terminating policies for home owners among California, and refusing to write any new policies for new home owners, leaving home owners with no homeowners insurances.

Oh, In NY restaurant are now using internet to outsource cashier jobs to South East Asia instead of hiring someone from the US due to "minimum wage increase", yet another "protective act" from the democrats

Obamacare (Affordable care Act) cause health insurance to increase that no one is affording it, while no clinics wants to accept patients with obamacare due to the low payout from the policies.

Need me to give out more examples?

Yes, I do have the right to deny unfavorable terms by not accepting a job, but that alone doesn’t address the larger issue. Simply having the ability to decline low-paying jobs isn’t the same as being part of a fair business dynamic. Independent contractors deserve fair compensation for completed work, and when MSCs reject shops unfairly or fail to pay, that’s where the problem lies. The choice to accept or reject assignments is only meaningful when the terms on both sides are fair, and that’s what we’re asking for.

You mention that not getting paid is a risk that business owners take, and while that’s true, it doesn’t mean that we should normalize it or simply accept it without recourse. Contractors—whether high-end or entry-level—deserve the assurance that if they complete a job according to agreed-upon terms, they will be compensated. This isn’t about avoiding risk altogether, but about addressing systemic issues that allow MSCs to skirt responsibility when they choose not to pay for completed work.

As for the ‘systemic’ issue you mention, using the word doesn’t mean playing the victim. It’s about recognizing patterns where a small number of companies can take advantage of large pools of contractors because of the power imbalance. If the majority of people are being paid fairly, that’s great, but those ‘few hiccups’ you mention are still important. For the individuals who don’t get paid, it’s not a small issue—it’s their livelihood. Government involvement or regulation isn’t about making sweeping changes that hurt businesses; it’s about ensuring fair practices for everyone involved.

You’ve brought up several examples of government policies that didn’t work out as intended, but not every policy has the same impact. In many cases, government regulations have protected vulnerable workers or contractors from being taken advantage of. The issue is not about whether all regulation is good or bad; it’s about making sure that the rules we put in place protect contractors from unfair treatment without stifling business opportunities.

The examples you cite, like minimum wage laws and insurance regulations, are different from the conversation we’re having about mystery shopping. Asking for fair pay for completed work is not comparable to minimum wage debates. We’re not asking to disrupt the entire system—just for clear, fair processes where both sides are held accountable. The idea that pushing for fairness will tank the entire industry is exaggerated. If MSCs are operating ethically and treating their contractors fairly, there should be no need for concern.

Ultimately, this isn’t about government overreach or playing the victim. It’s about ensuring that independent contractors, who are contributing real work and value, are paid fairly and treated with respect. If the majority of shoppers are being paid on time and fairly, great—but that doesn’t mean we ignore the minority who are not. Fairness shouldn’t be selective.

21.3 million people are using Obamacare. Obamacare provides coverage for pre-existing conditions and has made healthcare affordable. If you want a comparison, look at the cost of COBRA coverage. Every time Obamacare has been brought to a vote by petition in states where the governor refused to adopt it (all
red states", it has been voted in by a wide margin, because the people who need it understand that it offers them reasonably priced health care that covers pre-existing conditions. Coverage levels in states with Obamacare go up every year as more and more people find it a fantastic opportunity to get healthcare.

Why only 21 million? Because 66 million are currently covered by Medicare, 72 million are enrolled in Medicaid (some also have Medicare coverage), and 165 million are covered by employer health care plans. 165 million is 61% of the people under the age of 65.

Do you live in a state with Obamacare, or are you just parroting "alternative facts" about Obamacare? No state that has adopted Obamacare has ever dropped it. The people in those states must like it.

@kisekinecro wrote:

Obamacare (Affordable care Act) cause health insurance to increase that no one is affording it, while no clinics wants to accept patients with obamacare due to the low payout from the policies.

Indy's use of what I consider the most despicable word in the business lexicon, FAIR, necessitates a response. I do not believe anyone attempting to be successful as an IC can dwell upon that word and/or its derivations

On a slightly related note, this thread has proceeded in an intelligent and cordial manner; my compliments to all involved.

@myst4au wrote:

If you want a comparison, look at the cost of COBRA coverage.

Just adding, especially if you worked for a company that offered exceptional benefits before. In my case, the employee cost of premiums from each paycheck were exceptionally low. But if being let go/terminated, it's not an expense that anyone wants to pay.

This may not apply to everyone, but there was a period I was better off without insurance, and using a GoodRx coupon instead for needed prescriptions.

@shopperbob wrote:

Indy's use of what I consider the most despicable word in the business lexicon, FAIR, necessitates a response. I do not believe anyone attempting to be successful as an IC can dwell upon that word and/or its derivations

On a slightly related note, this thread has proceeded in an intelligent and cordial manner; my compliments to all involved.

I appreciate your compliments on the tone of this thread, and I’m glad we can have this discussion in a respectful way. That said, I strongly disagree with your dismissal of the word ‘fair.’ Fairness is not a dirty word in business—it’s a fundamental principle that underpins successful and sustainable partnerships. No one is asking for handouts or special treatment; we’re simply asking for a level playing field where both sides are held accountable to the agreements they make.

As independent contractors, we’re not looking for guarantees that everything will always go our way, but we are entitled to expect that if we complete a job according to the terms laid out, we will be compensated. That’s not dwelling on fairness—that’s the basic foundation of any business transaction. Fairness ensures trust, which is essential in maintaining long-term relationships, whether in mystery shopping or any other industry.

Dismissal of the concept of fairness is, frankly, problematic. Without fairness, we’re left with a system where one party holds all the power and the other is forced to accept whatever is thrown at them. That kind of imbalance isn’t conducive to success for anyone—whether you’re an independent contractor or a large corporation. A business world without fairness is one where the strongest players thrive at the expense of others, and that’s not a healthy or sustainable model.

It’s entirely possible to be successful as an independent contractor while still insisting on fairness. In fact, many of the most successful partnerships are built on mutual respect and fair treatment. No one benefits from an exploitative relationship in the long term, and demanding fairness is about ensuring that both parties get what they deserve based on their contributions.

So, while the word ‘fair’ may be frustrating for some, it remains a core value in any good business practice. It’s not about entitlement; it’s about making sure that we, as independent contractors, are treated with the same respect and professionalism that we bring to the table.

Latest article about Freelance isn't free signed into law in California: [blog.freelancersunion.org]

@ArkLaMissshopping wrote:

Latest article about Freelance isn't free signed into law in California: [blog.freelancersunion.org]

I'm glad they included an anti-retaliation provision in the law. Their $250 contract minimum for the law to take effect, however, will mean that freelance work that used be paid $250 can now be offered at much less. There should not be a minimum in either California or New York.

@shopperbob wrote:

On a slightly related note, this thread has proceeded in an intelligent and cordial manner; my compliments to all involved.

I echo this, too. I didn't contribute to this thread, but I enjoyed reading it.

I'm going to try staying out of the political aspect of some comments but let's not forget that part of the reason the government has had to step in and regulate things is because of businesses trying to take advantage of people.

Many employers have tried to incorrectly classify employees as IC's instead of employees. This gets them out of paying taxes, OT rates, etc. if the employers operated ethically in the first place, maybe government wouldn't have had to step in and help further define what an IC vs. an employee is.

[www.dol.gov]

I completely agree with Joanna.

Deleted

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/09/2024 10:45PM by shopperbob.

I'm reading the comments about how government shouldn't be involved in business concerns, and while I agree to an extent, I can't help thinking about how things used to be: Sweatshops. Child labor. Unsafe working conditions for industrial workers in places like shipyards, steel mills, and while building skyscrapers. What would all that look like today if there hadn't been government (and union) intervention/regulations/oversight?

I know those examples don't involve mystery shopping or our roles as ICs. My point is that government involvement isn't always a bad thing.

If you're going to tell me I'm talking out of my rear end, please do so cordially. Thank you. -curtsies-



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/10/2024 01:26AM by drdoggie00.

@drdoggie00 wrote:

I'm reading the comments about how government shouldn't be involved in business concerns, and while I agree to an extent, I can't help thinking about how things used to be: Sweatshops. Child labor. Unsafe working conditions for industrial workers in places like shipyards, steel mills, and while building skyscrapers. What would all that look like today if there hadn't been government (and union) intervention/regulations/oversight?

I know those examples don't involve mystery shopping or our roles as ICs. My point is that government involvement isn't always a bad thing.

If you're going to tell me I'm talking out of my rear end, please do so cordially. Thank you. -curtsies-

Again, we are not truly ICs. Some feel that they are, but the fact is that when we take a job or gig, we are directed how to do it. We do not initiate contact with multiple clients to come up with a survey for them to improve their services. That's what an MSC does, they offer a trained evaluative product. MSCs are allowed to contract with various subagents to complete a series of shops. We are not allowed to contract subagents to complete work - even though that's what ICs are allowed to do in other fields. When we accept the work, we have to follow the survey and answers must hit marks which are determined by the MSC upon consulting with the client. That's employment - even if it's just for a few minutes or an hour. And even if we negotiated pay or can elect which jobs we agree to accept and which MSCs we want to work for. Each individual job is employment with that MSC do do work determined by them to be the work.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/10/2024 05:07PM by cherubino3.

@drdoggie00 wrote:

-curtsies-

All this time, I thought this was a charade, but you really are from Podunk!

@Okie wrote:

All this time, I thought this was a charade, but you really are from Podunk!

-lol- Okie, I have been a Podunkian my entire life. Where I grew up, we thought we hit the big time when we got a McDonald's.

And yes, I pronounce it "MacDonald's."

@drdoggie00 wrote:

And yes, I pronounce it "MacDonald's."

You may want to expunge that word from your lexicon in this thread. It may provoke the wrong kind of response. I say, jokingly, to everyone reading this.

Here is an article by an attorney about misclassified independent contractors. They won a huge case against doordash.

[www.toddflaw.com]

Here is the independent contractor test:

1. They perform a function unrelated to the company’s typical business
2. They are free from control and direction when performing their work for the company
3. They often engage in the same work independently for other parties

If they do not meet all of these requirements, then they should be classified as employees.
---
1. We perform functions which are related to the company's typical business.
2. We are NOT free from control and direction - we are controlled and directed by the survey and the shop instructions.
3. While many of us engage in the same type work for other parties, we are not self-directing the new employment. Each of those does not meet the first two requirements. We have no control or real independence while we are on the job.

Examples of who have this independence are an architect who has other people work under him while he puts his name on it, an attorney who has paralegals working for them, MSCs who hire us as subagents, house painters, paper shredding companies who drive their truck around, carpet layers, brick layers, the junk guys who can and hauled our trash away. You hire them and they are allowed to hire others to help them. I'd say editors are independent contractors who just edit. Schedulers might be considered to be independent who just schedule.

Yes, we offer our services as mystery shoppers, but we don't create any of the work flow other than the time we show up, which is pretty weak.

probably wrong place to ask but how do you go about negotiating shop fees. Not sure how that would go after the shop is assigned to you

@drdoggie00 wrote:

I'm reading the comments about how government shouldn't be involved in business concerns, and while I agree to an extent, I can't help thinking about how things used to be: Sweatshops. Child labor. Unsafe working conditions for industrial workers in places like shipyards, steel mills, and while building skyscrapers. What would all that look like today if there hadn't been government (and union) intervention/regulations/oversight?

Don't forget slavery and indentured servitude. The government had to get involved in a big way to end those

@joedor101 wrote:

probably wrong place to ask but how do you go about negotiating shop fees. Not sure how that would go after the shop is assigned to you

Talk with your scheduler beforehand.

@joedor101 wrote:

probably wrong place to ask but how do you go about negotiating shop fees. Not sure how that would go after the shop is assigned to you

They will say they can't add a bonus or change the shop fee after shop is accepted. But just to emphasize prior discussion, negotiating the fee for each acceptance of a contract to complete a job doesn't make you an independent contractor.

I recently did a BE in a challenged area of the town that I live in. There was no area for merchandised BE product. I took a picture of the foyer (where it has been located at other BE). I submitted this picture. Editor emailed requesting another picture. I wrote back stating what is written above. This was not acceptable. While checking website this morning, I see that I have been deactivated!

I appreciate all of your thoughts on this. Am I wrong for being upset or is this SOP for this company?

I am out $20. and drove 15 miles to do this shop. The food was not very good.

Huh, it states right in the statute that it is for any contracted work valued at $800 or more in a 120 day period.
So not a measly $25 ...

Service Award wrote >>So, if you must, go ahead and file a complaint over a measly $25<<

WTH are you talking about ?? You obviously never had or benefitted from the affordable care act. Well I did and it was a life saver when the only other option was Medicaid (which I had for awhile) and my doctors AND dentist accepted it and I got quality health care.
Do not speak on that of which you do not know.

>>>Obamacare (Affordable care Act) cause health insurance to increase that no one is affording it, while no clinics wants to accept patients with obamacare due to the low payout from the policies<<<

Yep, same.
Spouse had Cobra for one month after job loss and it was absolutely NOT sustainable (if I recall it was something like 1300 a mo. and that was back in the early aughts).
We were without insurance for a good span of time and found out just HOW MUCH costs go up when you are covered by insurance. Having to pay cash for meds was definitely an eye opener it was often LESS than the Co-Pay amount if we had been insured.

@Okie wrote:

@myst4au wrote:

If you want a comparison, look at the cost of COBRA coverage.

Just adding, especially if you worked for a company that offered exceptional benefits before. In my case, the employee cost of premiums from each paycheck were exceptionally low. But if being let go/terminated, it's not an expense that anyone wants to pay.

This may not apply to everyone, but there was a period I was better off without insurance, and using a GoodRx coupon instead for needed prescriptions.

@Boutique wrote:

Yep, same.
Spouse had Cobra for one month after job loss and it was absolutely NOT sustainable (if I recall it was something like 1300 a mo. and that was back in the early aughts).
We were without insurance for a good span of time and found out just HOW MUCH costs go up when you are covered by insurance. Having to pay cash for meds was definitely an eye opener it was often LESS than the Co-Pay amount if we had been insured.

Oh my, I'm not sure how it worked back then, but I had three months to apply COBRA retroactively from termination date. Most likely I wasn't going to with the monthly premium bordering $3k, and this is me being single with no kids on a high-deductible plan with HSA. Unless something catastrophic happened. But this company is headquartered somewhere else, and has to offer all employees these benefits.

I got lucky in that my previous employer gave me a sizeable severance package and notice. I got to take of everything I needed to. But I had to sign a waiver to not pursue any potential legal action.

But health insurance is one of the biggest reasons I'll continue to work a full-time job with a big company, in the near future. On a high-deductible plan with current employer, my 3-month prescriptions have gone from what would have been over $3k out-of-pocket to less than $100.

I'm in favor of stuff like GoodRx and what Mark Cuban is pursuing.

@Karenhal wrote:

I recently did a BE in a challenged area of the town that I live in. There was no area for merchandised BE product. I took a picture of the foyer (where it has been located at other BE). I submitted this picture. Editor emailed requesting another picture. I wrote back stating what is written above. This was not acceptable. While checking website this morning, I see that I have been deactivated!

I appreciate all of your thoughts on this. Am I wrong for being upset or is this SOP for this company?

I am out $20. and drove 15 miles to do this shop. The food was not very good.

You are not wrong to be upset. You can still claim the miles on your taxes as a business expense. The reason why the MSCs love pushing the independent contractor myth for our services is that it would cost them a lot more to have a full-time employee travel to each of these locations to do this work. Sometimes screenshotting the requirements helps the editor along to get it. It's important to always be polite. I was deactivated for not wanting to do a shop when they were saying they would offer it for a $10 bonus but then only put it in for a $5 bonus. Then they were really rude about it and cut me. But whatever, they were more than happy to abuse and I'm better off without them.

Thank you for your response. I truly appreciate your comments.

I have mystery shopped over 30 years and have never been reprimanded or deactivated. It was like a slap in the face.

Maybe it was just my turn with them.

My Cobra in the aughts was very reasonable, $300 per month for a single person. Your payments 20 years ago really depended on where you worked and their collective bargaining power to work down those payments.

The affordable care act was supposed to make it more affordable for everyone on the belief that if everyone is insured, the costs should be lower regardless of where you worked. Those who are generally healthier pay in for those who have greater needs. And there is no denial of pre-existing conditions - that is huge. You shouldn't lose your home to pay for medical bills - that's also what bankruptcy homestead protection is for.

I am debating whether this is off-topic. It does correlate because, as alleged independent contractors who are actually misclassified, we have no bargaining power on health insurance costs with our very part time employers who dictate the terms of our work.