TWiki . Edumacation . MaryKayOpinion77Reply1	TWiki . { Main | Edumacation | TWiki | Test }
	Edumacation . { Home | Users | Changes | Search | Go }

Why does the media only show the WORST side of things and not both. Why weren't these letters shown. Why did they mention the first letter that is a "form letter" (which Laura has referred to quite often) and not the many more that followed?"

Did the media control the testimony presented at trial? No. So presumably Mary Kay would have been able to present those letters and if the jury had found that these letters showed that Mary Kay treated Woolf fairly, they presumably wouldn't have rendered the verdict they did. Certainly they wouldn't have included the punitive damages.

Wendy: I'm not disagreeing that the documents weren't presented in court. Clearly since she lost her car and position that is what was being sought out in court. They feel that MK deliberately took away someones position because they were sick. I think that if a position was taken away and who knows for sure, MK was of course challenging that she was not an employee but a loop hole was found that in an illness situation, an independent contractor is like an employee. If this is something that was unprecedented before, I guess it took this situation to make it so. I am saying that the media makes everything look so bad. Who can disagree with that?

... what did Mary Kay do wrong? Let's ponder this for a moment...so Mary Kay reduces qualifications at the drop of a hat for this gal, now we have Suzie Q. who is struggling with a pregnancy and Jenny O. who has liver cancer who are now saying, "well we have had these illnesses for 6 mos...what about us!" and now there's another lawsuit. That whole thing would start a ripple affect. This was unprecedented and therefore, you cannot LEGALLY as a Corporation just change guidelines on a whim...

I agree with you about changing the rules on a case-by-case basis. This has gotten some other companies in trouble. They need to define the rules and apply them across the board. They can't let some people miss their goals for more than 2 months in a row, but not others, unless they have a rule that specifies just when it's okay to miss more than 2 months in a row.

If they send out these "form letters" but then don't apply them, that's going to cause trouble for them too. Basically, they have to be fair and honest with everybody. To do otherwise breaches the "covenant of good faith and fair dealing" that's implied in every contract.

Wendy: I don't know if her calling them would have meant she could go inactive for many, many months. I think she wanted them to allow her to be able to do this. If this had never happened before with Mary Kay and they were never sued because it was an understanding in the Director agreement of what our responsibilities were and now this gal comes along and wants to have MK do a long extension just for her, I can see where someone could get mad and sue. It's a sue happy world if WE don't get what we want. MK makes exceptions for a few months and has some Directors making it and not making it every few months but if she was expecting MK to give her 6 mos. a year or who knows how long of reduced qualifications, MK would have to say no to that because of the Director agreement. It's quite clear what we need to do. It's also quite clear that we can resign our position and return but will have to build it up again. How would MK know that she could sue and be looked at as an employee because she was sick.

after sometime they decided they could reduce her qualifications and not take her Directorship completely away. I was read the entire last and final letter that was sent to her stating that they were aware of the situation and that her Unit was "suffering" and she could "lose" Directorship due to that, but that they would maintain her Director status and that she could return at any time. In a nutshell she would lose her unit due to it just falling apart overtime but they would maintain her status and how I took it, give her time to come back to resume her position without having to go through DIQ again. She would obviously have to rebuild but would be a Director and I've never see that before. ... I'm also sure there were some issues with whom would maintain/train her people in the interim.

Let's start with that question about who would maintain her group in the interim. What happens to the ability of the group members to sell Mary Kay products if the director is unavailable?

Maybe there wouldn't be group meetings and other motivational activities. The director wouldn't be available to answer procedural questions from the group. But the group members would still be able to order product for sale and for inventory, and still be able to receive communications from Mary Kay about products and promotions. This should all be true because the group members are independent contractors and not salaried employees who have to constantly be watched to make sure they're doing what they're supposed to be doing.

If this is true, then the 50 members of her group would still be generating sales and revenue for Mary Kay, and if I'm interpreting your statement above correctly, they were going to take away from her the income she had been deriving from those sales.

I don't doubt that this is consistent with their agreement, but this doesn't sound like "good faith and fair dealing" to me.

Wendy: The Unit has to have a Director. If she takes a "leave" then that probably means no newsletter, no meeting, no contact with her unit or very little and you would have to be a Director in MK to know (and I don't believe you ever were or ever even a consultant) that your Unit WILL dwindle if you discontinue contact with them or cease to nurture them as you did. It's just a matter of time. I don't know why that is but they look up to you and some may continue on but over time, not enough to maintain the same level you were at. They would have to arrange for another Director to take over and in cases of resignation, it's the Senior Director. She probably knew this and MK Corporate cannot do anything to make her Unit work. They are bonded with her. She knew her business would never be the same if she stepped back.

The essence of the "independent contractor" status is that you get to decide how to run your business. Because you're using the Mary Kay brand name, they may be able to impose some limitations, but the setting of increasing goals as the number of people in your group grows sounds like a problem to me.

Directors should be getting compensated based on their group volume. If volume goes up, their compensation goes up. If volume goes down, their compensation goes down. In other words, directors should be able to put in as little or as much effort as they want, and be entitled to receive the compensation according to the results they achieve.

But it seems that's not how Mary Kay works it. Mary Kay sets different quotas to remain a director for different directors, depending on how they did previously. So some directors only have to maintain a $4000 a month quota, while others have to maintain a quota of $8000 a month, or they lose all their rights.

Am I understanding this correctly?

Wendy: No you are not. Our Unit size does NOT depict what we need to do in a month. We all have different unit sizes and it's the same minimum requirement across the board. Laura is right, only CAR changes the monthly requirements for production but Director Production is all the same. Again you have to be in MK to know these small details and clearly you were not involved with MK if you don't know these things.

EliMantel  - 03 Jan 2004

Regarding the Lawsuit........the papers said that she maintained HER STATUS AS AN INDEPENDENT BEAUTY CONSULTANT, NOT A DIRECTOR......why would a director have to go thru Director-In-Qualification if she remained a director....I read all the posted articles on this????? The lawsuit was clear that she DID LOSE her DIRECTORSHIP, but maintained CONSULTANT STATUS, so they maintained they didn't 'fire her' which is what happens when directors don't meet their 2 months in a row of the 4,000 production. once she got her "form letter" telling her about losing her unit.

Directors all have to do 4,000 min wholesale per month....yes a month can go by and your unit misses, but in the DIRECTORS AGREEMENT, the consequences of missing 2 consecutive months in a row were written. This lawsuit lady only had to do 4,000wholesale like all other directors......the 8000 written in some articles were the (retail value)....

If you are a car driving director, there are higher production levels to keep your car, but unit goals stay at 4,000......Car winners DO get accounts where points are put in, an initial amount from the company and then if unit members order $600 wholesale/month, the car winner gets 600 points for that order in her car account.
LauraRyan  - 04 Jan 2004

Topic MaryKayOpinion77Reply1 . { Edit | Ref-By | Attach | Diffs | r1.4 | > | r1.3 | > | r1.2 | > | r1.1 }

You must register before editing pages or using other extended features on this TWiki system.

Revision r1.4 - 05 Jan 2004 - 13:40 by EliMantel  Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2000-2005 by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration tool is the property of the contributing authors. Collect email addresses here. Ideas, requests, problems regarding TWiki? Send feedback.