So, now that the article's done - what does everyone thing about secret shoppers, or mystery shoppers? Have you ever been a secret shopper (or been tempted to be one)? Have you ever been secret-shopped in a job?

I've been dying to talk to everyone here about it since living, sleeping, eating, and breathing secret shoppers for the last couple of weeks or so.

[ 18 September 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]

That's what really gets me about it. It's just so unfair. At least when phone calls are "monitored for quality assurance purposes," the call is recorded and that way the employee might be able to recall the exchange if they get a chance to hear it - or at least there's some unbiased evidence and the employee could possibly defend themselves if they have a union.

I was also surprised, while doing my research, that this isn't a more important labour issue for retail and hospitality/service workers. Everyone knows it happens, and everyone I talked to were afraid of secret shoppers. But it was below the radar as a labour issue, despite the fact that people get fired or harrassed by their employers with "discipline days" without pay as a result.

My inspiration for writing the article was when I went to the movies one night at the Cineplex downtown and saw a big display with leaflets in it telling people they can get free movie tickets for becoming a mystery shopper. That was a few months ago, and the idea has been in my head ever since that I'd like to research this more and perhaps write about it.

I remember my years of misery working in retail. Thank goodness they didn't have secret shoppers then - or at least, they weren't as common then if they were around. The impression I got while talking to service employees is that secret shoppers are ubiquitous.

[ 18 September 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]

The secret shopper is not always right. They're often just average people without any training, who might ALSO be having a "bad day" when they're evaluating someone.

Personally, the more I learned about the way the most vulnerable workers in our society are victimized by this practice, the more I think that secret shoppers are really not much better than scabs, from an ethical point of view. And yet, I think they're often being victimized and tricked too.

At the very least, there should be some sort of ethical standards set around the practice. Right now, it's sort of "wild wild west" both on the end of the secret shoppers (who often go into it thinking they'll be compensated more, and not realizing what the consequences often are for employees), and on the end of the workers who can't really fight back as things stand right now.

The only ones who win in this whole thing are the agencies who employ secret shoppers, and the corporations who hire them. Neither the secret shoppers themselves nor the employees they're spying on get much out of it, beyond low-paying work. It's sad to see working class people turned on each other in such a blatant way.

[ 18 September 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
I agree with the right of workers to know when they are being evaluated. Nobody is at their best all the time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
They are being evaluated each and every time they serve a customer.

---

So do you believe that a worker should be told directly AFTER they've been secret-shopped, at least?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
So do you believe that a worker should be told directly AFTER they've been secret-shopped, at least?

---

No.

Customer service should be consistently the same regardless.

Being on very low income, I appreciated getting the odd perk, since most of the products/services I evaluated weren't what I'd typically purchase.

Did the job for about three months before the car went bye-bye. During that time, I mystery shopped about six or seven times (This is a small community.) Only one report was negative. The store in question was notorious back then for bad service (improved substantially after a change in management). In the other reports, my comments either were neutral or praised the service.

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
No.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
Why not? Don't you think they should be able to tell their side of the story? How can they tell their side of the story if they don't know which incident they're being written up over?

---

There is no "their" side to the story, there is only the customers side.

Needless to say, I'm against mystery shoppers. Real customers provide all the feedback stores need. If there's a specific problem with a staff member, I can see a manager investigating what's happening by wandering about incognito, but just sending folks around randomly is nothing more than a fishing expedition that nit-picks staff at the lowest level of the organization.

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
There is no "their" side to the story, there is only the customers side.

---

They're not customers. They're spies. Last I heard, no customer gave a damn whether or not the Radio Shack guy remembered to ask for your postal code, or, like the guy I interviewed was saying, whether the Holiday Inn server remembered to give you a coffee cup with a logo on it.

I'm surprised at your comments here, remind. I thought you cared about worker's rights. There is ALWAYS a worker's side of the story. In retail shit jobs, they often don't get to tell their side, and they're regularly victimized by managers. But that doesn't mean they don't have a side.

As Sineed says, real customers give feedback. Or, if managers feel like they need secret shoppers, it should be done ethically, where the worker can tell their side of what happened. Like, for instance, the store was understaffed that day (something you might not remember a month later) and that's why the customer had to wait 10 minutes to be served.

There is ALWAYS a worker's side of the story. Always.

[ 18 September 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]

What's wrong with figuring out who is performing their job poorly?
Why should a corportation retain poorly performing employees?
Would it really make good buisness sense to fire an employee based on one poor evaluation?

Now, there were a couple of questionable - hell downright stupid and terrible - practices I saw at that store, but IMO, this wasn't one of them.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
They're not customers. They're spies.

---

quote:

---

Last I heard, no customer gave a damn whether or not the Radio Shack guy remembered to ask for your postal code,

---

quote:

---

or, like the guy I interviewed was saying, whether the Holiday Inn server remembered to give you a coffee cup with a logo on it.

---

quote:

---

I'm surprised at your comments here, remind. I thought you cared about worker's rights.

---

quote:

---

There is ALWAYS a worker's side of the story.

---

No, as I said there isn't, the customer is always correct in either the retail or food service industry. Your view is one sided only.

quote:

---

In retail shit jobs, they often don't get to tell their side,

---

Now this is where the problem is in your viewing and reporting on this topic. You are coming from it from a biased perspective that retail jobs are "shit jobs". And you are overly empathizing with the employee.

quote:

---

and they're regularly victimized by managers. But that doesn't mean they don't have a side.

---

This victimization by managers is not a customer service issue, unless the manager is short staffing. Then complaints by the employees should go to owners, the main, or regional offices if it is impacting upon customer service.

quote:

---

There is ALWAYS a worker's side of the story. Always.

---

quote:

---

And it is a corporation policy that customers should refuse to particpate in.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
Clearly all retail workers need to be unionized.

---

I agree. And there still needs to be customers service training that is certifiable.

quote:

---

Especially if prejudiced attitudes, like those expressed by remind, prevail.

---

It is not prejudiced it is years of life and experience that brings an understanding of all sides of the issue.

quote:

---

If I'm wrong,

---

quote:

---

then perhaps remind can explain what remedy workers have for an incompetent evaluation or an antagonistic report that is false.

---

I did already, did you read the thread?

quote:

---

It might as well be a dictatorship if there is no objective standard or verification of the claims of the secret shopper available to the employees.

---

quote:

---

Workers in production have a certain level to achieve and they can verify the facts themselves.

---

You would have saved yourself a lot of time bashing me if you would have read what I said about customer service certification and labour laws above.

quote:

---

Not so with these employer witch-hunts. The latter are completely arbitrary.

---

They are not witch hunts, good customer service is essential to the success of retail and food services. There is no other way to see if good customer service is happening.

quote:

---

Even the reactionary Globe and Mail rejects such principles in its masthead.

---

quote:

---

Give your head a shake, remind.

---

[ 18 September 2007: Message edited by: remind ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
An evaluation of an event, perhaps months after the fact,

---

quote:

---

is perfect for abuse. Especially when the employee has no way of knowing that they are being evaluated and, therefore, need to remember the tiniest details if they wish to challenge the observations or evaluation.

---

As I said, all customer service employees should understand they are being evaluated with each and EVERY customer, and conduct themselves accordingly.

quote:

---

What's the remedy? Find another job? I'm sticking with the union.

---

Mandatory customer service certification. If they are being unfairly targeted by management, yes, they should find another job

And as I said, I agree with all customer service jobs becoming unionized, but still within that framework, there would have to be certified training to set the standards to be adhered to.

[ 18 September 2007: Message edited by: remind ]

I once got fired for refusing to wear a pink bow tie (and it was not part of the official uniform but the whim of the manager to dress all the women up like "Dress for Success" from hell.)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sineed:
I once got fired for refusing to wear a pink bow tie (and it was not part of the official uniform but the whim of the manager to dress all the women up like "Dress for Success" from hell.)

---

You should have taken it to labour relations you cannot be fired for that.

quote:

---

The customer is always right? Hardly! All workers have a right to safe workplace, free from harrassment. I've been sworn at, and once had a guy take a swing at me. Last week, we had a guy throwing a bicycle around in the store.

---

I have NEVER been instructed to purposely make an employee's job difficult as described by Sineed, then again I have never done Shoppers Drug Mart. The closest thing to difficult I have been asked to do is ask for a modification to a meal (i.e. no tomato on my sandwich) or buy something, then return it later (the employee is supposed to ask why I'm returning and try to sell me something else).

Reporting requirements vary considerably from company to company. Some have very quick multiple choice forms, some require extensive comments that can take hours to write (I try to avoid those ones), and most are a combination of multiple choice with comments. I have also done "reward" shops or audits, where I have identified myself to the employees after the shop. In those shops, if the employees do well, they get prizes (usually gift certificates to movies) and a certificate of congratulations. If they don't pass, I go over the problem areas and warn them they will be shopped again in the few weeks.

Every company that I work for requires comments to be constructive. Also, in many cases, a No answer requires a justification, and a yes answer does not. So if the employee was on the line, I'm more inclined to answer "yes" and not have to justify it. I'm often pleasantly surprised at how well employees abide by requirements like upselling and timing of service. In very rare circumstances, the employee has likely failed. For example, if I enter a retail store, pick up an article of clothing and no one asks if I want to try it on after five minutes. If that doesn't seem very long to you, try it next time you're in a small store. Or if my main course is not delivered 30 minutes after I order. Now in some cases, the kitchen might be backed up or the retail store might be understaffed. If there's room for justifications, I can explain it there.

People in the service industry are there to provide good customer service and are expected to upsell where possible. This benefis the employer obviously, but also the employee in many cases where the employee can earn commission, bonuses, or tips. In my first year of university, I worked at a restaurant that has secret shoppers. I was told about it on my first day and never had a problem with it. So long as I did my job properly, it was a non-issue.

I wanted this article to be from the point of view of workers who get secret-shopped. I referenced lots of other points of view in the links in my article, though. One is of a secret shopper for Cineplex. Three CBC stories on the subject from the point of view of secret shoppers and companies that use them.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jrose:
So what's the best way to target poor customer service then?

---

Good customer service certification given by a college, not the business, seriously.

quote:

---

I've been through enough customer service training sessions to know that most employees don't take them seriously.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
Yeah, that's what I'm going to do. Go to college to learn how to do a minimum-wage job. Ever tried to pay back a student loan on minimum wage?

---

Michelle, the type of course I am speaking of, is like a food safe, Level 1 occupational first aide, or serve it right, course. It would be 100 bucks or less.

Customer service in retail, particularily in small businesses is a serious issue.

quote:

---

Attitudes like "it is a shit job that pays minimum wage so why bother" puts businesses out of business.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 1234567:
If you are treated like shit, it is a shit job.

---

Yes it is, and that could be any job not just retail.

quote:

---

I know alot of places that have a very low turnover rate of staff because they treat their staff well.

---

I guess the key word here is "alot", and I have found this to be true. And within that framework, I have found many employees that do not "know" what good customer service is and as such they cannot possibly give good customer service.

quote:

---

What puts businesses out of business is businesses treating their staff like crap and then expecting them to give great customer service.

---

Well your statements are conflicting to your own observation and the stats on business demise, the majority of businesses go out of business because of customer service driving customers away. You yourself have observed "alot" of business have low turnover rates because they treat their employees well, those business owners probably also probably have good critia for good customer service. And they are not stressed out because their business is failing because of lack of customers.

quote:

---

remind: If an employee is being treated like crap is it not their responsibility to either leave that position, or to effectively communicate that the employer does not have the right to treat them like crap?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
I've read exactly the same argument used to blame the victims of spousal abuse and violence for their problems. Workers need protection and freedom from harassment; in an unequal relationship, where the boss has most of the power, the vulnerable parties need protection. What's so hard to understand? We have laws that protect children. Hell, we have laws to protect "dumb" animals.

---

And we have laws to protect workers and in the majority cases they do.

What is so hard to understand about good customer service training that protects and enhances both the employee and the business owner and alliviates problems?

I have said nothing here denigrating employees and I am certainly not blamming them in any way shape or form. Stating they can walk away from a job or challenge the conditions is not denigrating them, nor using it as term to blame the victim such as you have decided it is.

In fact, I just said above most do not know how to provide good customer service, it takes experience and/or training, and I go with training before the employee starts the job and enforcing business owners to adhere to that level of training knowledge. If first time employees were to take a course that teaches them customer skills and what their rights are in the work place there would be much much less abuse of new employees

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
This is the kind of small-minded bullshit that makes revolutions happen. They'll push and push workers until they grind them down into becoming snivelling, bleeting and babbling shells of their real selves. Enough! It's high time workers started demanding some godd amn rights in this Northern Puerto Rico!

---

Did you even read the thread fidel, or are you just jumping from nbeltov's remarks into a fit?

To answer jrose's question, how can we ensure that service workers maintain good service, my solution would be to pay them a livable wage, include 15% service fee in restaurant bills, and find other ways to return dignity to service workers. The whole NA service industry is predicated on offshoring manufacturing and other entry-level jobs while creating a huge financial/business sector that wants cheap clothing, themed restaurants and royal treatment. This illogical and untenable desire creates a corporate service industry that is aligned with this attitude and exploits an untrained workforce to serve the upper-middle classes. So if you want better service (from your peers!) we need to rethink why we have this sense of entitlement in the first place.

quote:

---

Who gets paid to peekaboo CEO's and CFO's to see if they're cooking the books or screwing over the shareholders and workers ?

---

I think it must have been a while since remind was a minimum wage retail worker. When you're in a minimum wage job, you suck up whatever shit you're given because you know that you're completely replaceable by the next person who needs a shit job. And yes, minimum wage retail jobs ARE shit jobs. They're shit jobs because you're paid like shit and treated like shit, often both by customers AND management.

Some places have low turnover, it's true. The place I worked for four years had low turnover. We were paid like shit and treated like shit, but we felt like there were no other options, and better the shit you know than to leave and find another shit job where there's the shit you don't know.

Fidel's analogy is good. It's illegal to abuse women, but that doesn't stop lots of guys from doing it to their wives and girlfriends. Laws don't stop shitty guys from treating their girlfriends like shit, and remind would be beside herself if people blamed women for such abuse. Laws also don't stop shitty employers from treating their employees like shit (or allowing their customers to do so), but remind has no problem with blaming employees of crappy jobs for their situation. Hey, it's the employee's fault for thinking a minimum wage job where customers treat you like crap is a "shit job" - it's not the employer's fault for making it a shit job to begin with! It's the employee's fault for not leaving! Certainly there's no power dynamic there that makes it hard to leave.

I think secret shopping is an okay tool, but not the way it's used now. It should be above-board and transparent for both the employer and the employee. Employees should have a chance to defend themselves against any accusations made by a secret shopper, and in order to do that, they have to be able to know and remember the exchange. So, they should be told right after they've been evaluated.

No union or person who supports unions wants to see workers get away with bad behaviour or poor performance. They just want to have a bit of balance in the power dynamic between employer and employee. If a secret shopper sent in a report that said it took them 5 minutes to be served by Michelle on a day when it was understaffed, but Michelle only hears about this report a month later, doesn't remember the day or the time, and doesn't recall that the store was understaffed that day, then that's not a fair process. If Michelle finds out right after a secret shopping report that she's been shopped, she will make note of the conditions she was under at that moment, and be able to defend herself when she has to answer for the report. And if Michelle really was just fucking the dog that day, and there were no extenuating circumstances, then she'll have to suck up the bad report and admit that, yes, she screwed up.

[ 19 September 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]

It’s an interesting mindset that reduces all relationships to one’s of mechanistic economic exchanges, reduces genuine human interaction and connections to relations of consumer and seller. The service sector employee is stripped of personality and is reduced to an automaton spouting a corporate script, no chance for authentic engagement or spontaneity. The customer is stripped of their richness and becomes nothing beyond a collection of material wants, forget social or emotional needs. I much prefer to relate to anyone on a human level rather than in the realm of corporate cultures constructed roles.

Of course those who own and run corporations certainly don’t believe the customer is always right in fact the believe the opposite that the customer never knows what they want so they need to be cajoled and manipulated into buying more. That is the entire focus of marketing that is the entire focus of advertising. The focus of the up-sell is not in the interest of the customer, the assumption is not that the customer knows what they want and need assistance in locating the item the idea is that they need to be convinced that they need more than what they came in for. Corporations demand the up sell but as a customer I certainly don’t desire or appreciate it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.R.KISSED:
It is interesting the extent to which corporate ideology has become embedded within everyday consciousness. Assumptions that the customer is always right only have weight if we willingly accept the mythical role of the entitled consumer, which relegates our utmost desires to choosing the right flavour for our double latte or to have our pizza within 30 minutes or free.

---

One thing I've noticed is that unionized LCBO employees, who make around 20 bucks an hour, always treat me with respect. We're equals. I like that. When you're being paid properly and treated respectfully at your job, you're much less likely to be unhappy or feel like pulling passive-aggressive stuff on customers.

Not that I think that minimum wage employees aren't my equal. What I mean is, we're equals in that we're both being paid a living wage, and we interact on an equal level instead of one of power on my part and deference or humility on their part.

I've just read the first couple of pages of this and already I'm laughing. I think I just might buy it!

[ 19 September 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]

As I said, I'm not completely against secret shopping. It just needs to be fair. There should be an ethical standard that they have to meet, and the employees have to have an opportunity to answer charges made against them. They can't do that if it's anonymous and they first learn about it a month later.

Freedom In The Workplace?

quote:

---

This clearly written and tightly argued text introduces students to moral concepts of freedom, force, and coercion. In addition to offering an original account of these important moral concepts, it teaches students about working conditions for the bottom tier of American workers. Gertrude Ezorsky illustrates her points with real world cases that vividly illustrate the stakes behind our moral concepts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
Wow, that's incredible. remind thinks that for the most part, minimum wage retail workers are treated well.

---

quote:

---

remind thinks that labour laws are followed for the most part.

---

quote:

---

I think it must have been a while since remind was a minimum wage retail worker.[

---

quote:

---

They're shit jobs because you're paid like shit and treated like shit, often both by customers AND management.

---

quote:

---

Fidel's analogy is good.

---

quote:

---

but remind has no problem with blaming employees of crappy jobs for their situation. Hey, it's the employee's fault for thinking a minimum wage job where customers treat you like crap is a "shit job" - it's not the employer's fault for making it a shit job to begin with! It's the employee's fault for not leaving! Certainly there's no power dynamic there that makes it hard to leave.

---

Gave this much thought last evening and this am, and concluded that my comment was deeply in error, as I could not align it with my belief that service sector employees need to be unionized. I was looking through a biased lense of self-empowerment that others might not have access to.

[ 19 September 2007: Message edited by: remind ]

quote:

---

I've also heard that the LCBO gets secret shoppers who try to buy booze underage.

---

As Alex Dagg was saying in my article, there is no such protection for non-unionized employees who are victimized by secret shoppers.

quote:

---

Originally posted by abnormal:

They're called auditors.

---

Except that since the accounting scandals in the States at the start of the decade, and spilling over into Canada, the big corporations have managed to convince the feds down there not to penalize them with too much accountability. They've used the argument that smaller companies can't afford the extra paperwork and bureaucracy and will go under as a result. Big sugar companies are infamous for using small farmers(and they can still find a few of them to trot out infront of Congressional subcommitees) to justify keeping sugar prices high. It's a powerful right-wing lobby that sets the agenda down there.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
remind, I'm sorry - you are right, that I overreached there on the remark about you thinking minimum wage employees are treated well. I disagree with you about labour laws being followed, at least in Ontario. Employers here know that their minimum wage employees will probably not bother following up with the Labour Board since it takes months, if not years, to resolve a case.

---

It's okay, took no offense, I was wrong as well.

My daughter made a labour relations complaint against her employer and it only took 2 months to resolve and they found in her favour. And from what I have heard it seems 2-3 months is the norm. Though I understand she did not let it go because of her knowledge of her rights that others in her position might not have had.

This in part is why I think a short 6 hr course on customer service that contains a segment on employee rights is so important for employees that are just entering the workforce. The reality is unionization is not going to quickly come to the entire service industry and there is a need for employee protection until it does.

However, on the union side of things, my partner was unjustly fired from his position because he took exception to management's poor conduct and it took over 2 years to be resolved. In the end he was found to be correct and the company was deemed wrong but still it was a heavy impact upon us financially through the duration.

[ 19 September 2007: Message edited by: remind ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
They're not customers. They're spies. Last I heard, no customer gave a damn whether or not the Radio Shack guy remembered to ask for your postal code, or, like the guy I interviewed was saying, whether the Holiday Inn server remembered to give you a coffee cup with a logo on it.

---

Absolutely. In fact, I find questions like that to be quite invasive; I usually end up giving a work postal code or my university's, because they just HAVE to have something in the database.

quote:

---

Originally posted by abnormal:
They're called auditors.

---

You mean like the people at Arthur Andersen who helped fudge Enron's books and then tried to shove the blame onto Enron after they got caught stuck to the tar baby with Kenny boy Lay?

Real good example there, abnormal. Then again you think companies actually care if it's illegal to switch pension plans from defined benefit to defined contribution and then skim the surplus funds to fatten the CEO's wallet.

[ 19 September 2007: Message edited by: DrConway ]

From Shameless Magazine's website:

On The Job
Attention secret shoppers

Although I’ve had my share of retail jobs over the years, I’ve never thought very much about secret shoppers — people who are hired to pretend to be shoppers in order to evaluate employees at hotels, restaurants and stores, then report to back to management — other than to hope, as a worker, I wasn’t secret shopped. Luckily, Michelle Langlois has given the practice a thorough assessment over at Rabble.ca, revealing why secret shopping is a serious labour issue for service workers, most of whom are women and young workers. Secret shopping, Langlois notes, is “a billion-dollar retail practice [that] entices low-wage workers to spy on other workers.” Read on for her other insights.

quote:

---

Originally posted by M.Gregus:
I would inevitably get a talking to from my supervisor because I hated pitching products on sale, and would complete a majority of transactions without pushing extra crap on people. Frankly, it made me uncomfortable. But then I'd pay the price after getting reported by a mystery shopper who had a bone to pick with my "hassle-free" services (no hassling customers on my part! guess they didn't see it that way).

---

Isn’t making sure employees are doing their jobs exactly what the “secret shoppers” are supposed to accomplish? If a person is not comfortable selling other items, then leave the job.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
The secret shopper never identifies themselves to the employee (e.g. after the transaction say, "You've been secret shopped"), and the employee generally doesn't learn about it until weeks later, when they can't possibly remember the transaction and therefore can't tell their side of the story about the exchange.

That's what really gets me about it. It's just so unfair.

---

I think that’s a very fair comment. If a person is going to be evaluated on something, they need to be able to discuss the evaluation intelligently. If I were the employer, I would want to do that because it would be a better learning process for the employee. If I have a conversation with someone and they say, “I have no idea what you’re talking about,” then the conversation is neither fair nor productive.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
The only ones who win in this whole thing are the agencies who employ secret shoppers, and the corporations who hire them.

---

And the consumers.

And, that being said:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sineed:
The trouble with mystery shoppers, as Michelle points out so wonderfully in her article, is that they have more to do with enforcement of corporate policy and less to do with good customer service. So the clerk who gives gold-plated service and is beloved by the customers gets a demerit for not asking for postal codes.

---

But if part of your job is to ask for postal codes, you should be asking for postal codes!! The elements of the work that are being evaluated include those that affect customers and those that affect the employer. An employer has a legitimate interest in making sure that all of those elements are being met.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael Hardner:
Why would a company try to trap and harass its employees for no reason? Except in extreme cases, I don't see why an employee would be disciplined for an encounter with a secret shopper.

Any company that expects 100% performance at all times will deserve the high attrition rates that they will get.

---

That last sentence is key. If the secret shopping is done unfairly, then there will be high employee turnover and the employer will suffer. As it should be.

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
It might as well be a dictatorship if there is no objective standard or verification of the claims of the secret shopper available to the employees.

---

Not all work is objectively measured. Being a jerk to customers, for example, is not quantifiable. I eat “lunch” almost every day by getting a box of popcorn and a soda. A woman owns that and another popcorn stands and hires a person to help her with one of the stands. One of her employees was just plain surly and very unpleasant to deal with (she never smiled and I always felt like I was a burden on her asking her for a “large popcorn and a medium Diet Coke, please”. I talked with many other people and they felt the same way (so, it wasn’t just me). I told the owner about it and she said that a lot of people were giving her that feedback...and she said that since that employee had been working for her, she had seen a gradual decline in daily sales (I would avoid the stand when the employee was working). The owner eventually canned the employee and the new employee is fantastic (and sales are up, according to the owner).

quote:

---

My daughter made a labour relations complaint against her employer and it only took 2 months to resolve and they found in her favour. And from what I have heard it seems 2-3 months is the norm. Though I understand she did not let it go because of her knowledge of her rights that others in her position might not have had.

---

Well, here in Ontario, where my daughter hasn't been paid for over six weeks in a new job, Employment Standards complaints get handled at a snails pace (and that's no accident) as to make it impractical and of course business owners who steal by delaying pay or not paying are above the law and don't have to worry about going to jail for it.

And they send out spies and snitches on top of it?

What do you tell a young girl in tears because she hasn't been paid-- by a very major corporate chain?

Please name the company. If you don't point out those who commit misdeeds, you can't expect things to get better.

EYE magazine published a shocking article about Amato's Pizza's labour practices a few years back, and I never ordered from them again. I also made a point of telling people about Amato's whenever the topic of pizza came up.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
What do you tell a young girl in tears because she hasn't been paid-- by a very major corporate chain?

---

Go public, and picket? I would.

quote:

---

These employers are criminal vermin.

---

I agree that those who don't pay are, and it sounds horrible out there in ON, my mom always said it was USA north.

On that note, I have a wee bit of a story regarding non-payment of wages with my daughter.

When a younger teen she went to work in a gas bar, and the owner was telling them they had to work 2 weeks for free as part of their training. Which of course is not correct. When my daughter told me, I waited 2 days and then phoned him pretending to be from labour relations, read him the section of the labour code he was breaching and chastized him for trying to dupe young employees and even warned him he would get a fine if he tried to do such a thing. Their paychecks were right on time.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael Hardner:
Tommy,

Please name the company. If you don't point out those who commit misdeeds, you can't expect things to get better.

---

Certainly. It's Stitches, a boutique in the YM corporation. My daughter has tried to straighten it out through channels to no avail. She has been told she will be getting all her pay on the 24th of this month.

We'll see.

quote:

---

Go public, and picket? I would.

---

One cannot picket inside a mall. And besides, the store manager isn't the person responsible.

But I bet the corporate policy for shop lifting is zero tolerance. Funny how the chairman is exempt from prosecution when he steals from his employees.

And you'd want to be a snitch for them?

My ex, and my daughters have all worked in retail. It's obscene how the maximum is expected for minimum wage, and how employers do nothing to protect their employees from abusive customers.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
And you'd want to be a snitch for them?

---

That is about as outrageous as Michelle's accusations against me. I have never been a mystery shopper and never would, and never even alluded that I would in this thread!

MSN Survey 2006

These are the other clothing companies that scored zero:

Boutique Jacob
Forzani
Grafton-Fraser
Harry Rosen
International Clothiers
Le Chateau
Tristan & America
YM Inc.

These are companies that refuse to have their labour practices audited for fair practices. I refuse to set foot in any of those stores, and if the topic comes up, even in casual conversation in a mixed group, I always point out that they refuse to make their trade practices known.

As the report says:

quote:

---

Not all work is objectively measured. Being a jerk to customers, for example, is not quantifiable. I eat “lunch” almost every day by getting a box of popcorn and a soda. A woman owns that and another popcorn stands and hires a person to help her with one of the stands. One of her employees was just plain surly and very unpleasant to deal with (she never smiled and I always felt like I was a burden on her asking her for a “large popcorn and a medium Diet Coke, please”. I talked with many other people and they felt the same way (so, it wasn’t just me). I told the owner about it and she said that a lot of people were giving her that feedback...and she said that since that employee had been working for her, she had seen a gradual decline in daily sales (I would avoid the stand when the employee was working). The owner eventually canned the employee and the new employee is fantastic (and sales are up, according to the owner).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.R.KISSED:
What an endearing tale of triumph over adversity as a Corporate lawywer takes on a depressive popcorn lady and wins, truth, justice and the american way prevail.

---

If you have a choice of dealing with a pleasant person or an unpleasant person, which will you choose?

And, it just wasn't a "corporate lawyer" who was complaining to Carrie, the owner, but admin folks that I talked in our company who purchased popcorn there complained, too.

A jerk is a jerk. No one likes dealing with them, whether or not one is a "corporate attorney".

ETA: The story, by the way, was simply an illustration that shitty performance is not necessarily objectively measurable.

[ 19 September 2007: Message edited by: Sven ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
I bet you the next tax deductible "business" lunch that both the surly and the good employee were paid the same.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
If they want chipper and enthusiastic employees, then why don't business genuses just pay them more money instead of paying snitches ? I think snitches should push for a union. They might gain a bit of respect.

---

That was one of the questions I was thinking about asking union reps I was interviewing for the article, but when it came to the actual interviews, there was no real way of asking that as the conversations progressed. Not only did I realize that it would sound pretty sarcastic, but after hearing, at least from UNITE HERE, about how they have to defend their employees from these spies, it seemed nonsensical. I thought Dagg's comment (which is in the second-last paragraph of my article) pretty much said it all.

I have often written glowing reviews of employees. For example, at a furniture store where an employee took the time to sketch out living room and then illustrated how certain pieces would work together; when buying glasses and an employee patiently humored me while I tried on about 20 pairs before deciding; at restaurants, I get fantastic service all the time.

A few months ago, I ate at a “fine dining” restaurant, where entrees were on average about $30 each. The server was polite and friendly, but didn’t know anything about the menu, didn’t know how to serve wine, and didn’t do any of the small polished things you expect at a nicer restaurant. The meal did not flow properly. She was a perfectly adequate server for a family restaurant or a lunch, but not for an upscale restaurant. I put that in the report, suggesting that she would benefit from more training on fine dining service. Will she see the report and remember me specifically? Who knows. But my comments tell the restaurant that there’s something lacking in their training or hiring practices. They tell the server that at least one person thinks she needs to be more professional. Hopefully she got more training. I do know she wasn’t fired as I went back there last week and saw her working. Hopefully she was given more training. If so, I’d bet you a “tax deductible business lunch” that her tips have improved as a result.

quote:

---

If they want chipper and enthusiastic employees, then why don't business genuses just pay them more money instead of paying snitches ?

---

Also, to point out -> money is just one kind of motivation. My experience tells me that there are far more overpaid and unhappy workers than underpaid and unhappy workers.

It doesn't cost anything for a company to treat it's employees well, and to stay on the ball yet so few companies do that.

The other is to be a surrogate shopper.
In the role of surrogate shopper, the hiring corporation wants to find out what, if any, improvements are needed to provide a satisfactoy shopping experience.

By doing this, they're hoping stem any letters of complaint (or phone calls) to head office. And really, the employee has probably the same chance of defending him/herself against a consumer complaint as against a secret shopper.

I worked minimum wage retail for a number of years through highschool and university. And one thing I noticed was that those who treated it like it was a shit job treated the customers, fellow employees, and merchandise like shit, too. Their attitude bled all over the place.

Those who enjoyed it -- enjoyed working with the merchandise, customers, and other employees -- their attitude bled all over the place, too. It made for much better working conditions, even though we got paid exactly the same between the two retail outfits. Profit was probably higher where people had the better attitude, too.

That's part of what being a professional is all about, even if it's only minimum wage. And a corporation is entitled to do quality assurance checks on its employees.

We have it in white-collar jobs, too: it's part of performance reviews. Have you heard of 360 degree reviews? That's where a person's peers, managers, and employees are all interviewed and provide confidential feedback for the review process. I don't think that it's that different to use a secret shopper.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael Hardner:
Also, to point out -> money is just one kind of motivation. My experience tells me that there are far more overpaid and unhappy workers than underpaid and unhappy workers.

It doesn't cost anything for a company to treat it's employees well, and to stay on the ball yet so few companies do that.

---

In the retail and hospitality sector, I'd say there are a hell of a lot more underpaid and unhappy workers than anything.

And yes it does cost something for a company to treat its employees well. It costs them a living wage; it costs them benefits; it costs them proper sick time, proper break time, and managers who are trained to be sensitive to the needs of its workforce.

All of those things DO cost money, and a significant amount of it. And if they can't afford that, then they can't afford to be in business.

quote:

---

Moira Manion: I passed my first "secret shop" with a score of 98 percent. This made my employer happy and praiseful.

The score of my next secret shop was lower, 85 percent. Why? I had neglected to mention additional items for the secret shopper to buy in the airport jewelry store where I work. And points were taken because I hadn't known off the top of my head where in the airport a person could take her dog to poo. I did direct the secret shopper to a nearby information desk.

I was "counseled" by my manager and district manager. My performance was lacking, they said. I was "written up" and given a warning that I had better improve.

This struck me as strange. In only two months of employment there, selling high-end jewelry, which was something I'd never done before, I had become a top seller, often the top seller. I was always on time and never called in sick. I was reliable and responsible in a company with a high turnover. One would think that this would be proof of my value as a salesperson. But the opinion of one person, a secret shopper, had cast all the rest into doubt.

Recently, I had another secret shop. My score was 100 percent. Managers from other stores in the company congratulated me. As a reward, I was given a $100 Visa gift card, a "Recognition of Service" certificate, and a free lunch at TGI Fridays. Suddenly, I'm a valuable salesperson again.

The thing is, my sales style has remained consistent. I know what works for me, and I've stuck to it. Yet I've received three different scores from fake customers.

So what should I think? If companies insist on recording momentary impressions, they'd be wise to evaluate the skills of secret shoppers much more carefully before using them. If companies don't, they'll risk driving away good salespeople. I'm 100 person sure of that.

---

If it were a group of usability experts going out into the field, they'd start by "normalizing" -- ensuring that everyone is going to ask the same questions, look for the same points, grade the same way.

Many years ago I was a simulated patient for OSCEs... we would rehearse in group (there were usually several of us playing the same patient, either to process more students through at once, or to give the actor/simulated patient some time off). We'd rehearse until we were all delivering, as far as possible, the same performance.

Since the mystery shoppers don't actually identify the employees in this case, and they really are evaluating the store overall, this works for me.

People who think mystery shoppers that spy on individual employees are good for the consumer are hoodwinked, I think. When they spy on individual employees, much of it is to make sure they are doing all the hard sell and upsell stuff, and trying to get your personal information. As far as I'm concerned, that's not about helping consumers. That's about helping corporations.

I suppose you could argue that, as their employers, corporations have a right to ensure that the employees are doing their jobs and maximizing sales. Fine. But a lot of secret shopping agencies try to argue that it's about "providing better service", as if it's some great benefit to the customer. I think not. Anyone who has been to a Best Buy or Future Shop or other store where you get accosted by "sales associates" pressuring you into buying all sorts of stuff you don't need knows what I'm talking about.

[ 22 September 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]

Inflammatory comment deleted.

[ 17 July 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]

I'm not mistaken.

[ 17 July 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]