Re: In defense of MLMs

[Guest guest]

Hi Naomi. Very well put. And all anyone has to do is look at "designer clothing". Talk about high price for common goods! And just a few weeks ago they had one of the big name companies that "found out" their clothes were being made by child (slave) labor. Once this finally got to public notice they claimed they never knew this was happening and destroyed those clothes so they couldn't be sold. But then, why were they in India instead of the USA to begin with?

Now let's see--who's the greedy one here? The company that has a high price, and sends it's materials overseas where it can be made much more cheaply and yet NOT lower their selling price here in the US (so their profits are even greater than before) or an MLM company that pays a person who tries and loves and then sells their product? Companies never go elsewhere to LOWER their price, only to increase their profits. If they hurt the American workers by doing so--oh well. At least the corporate pocketbook winds up being bigger.

Samala,

-------Original Message-------

Every list I've ever been on gets into this kind discussion about MLMs, and I never speak to it. Well, this time I'm putting my 2 cents in.....

[Guest guest]

Naomi, A well-thought-out post. Thank you.

--G.

[sPAM][ ] In defense of MLMs

Every list I've ever been on gets into this kind discussion about MLMs, and I never speak to it. Well, this time I'm putting my 2 cents in.....

Many years ago when MLMs became popular, the business community launched a massive smear campaign from which MLMs never recovered, evidence of which is the suspicion and prejudice that still invariably shows up when someone tries to promote a product through an MLM.

The structure of the MLM marketing system is fairer and more equitable than our normal accepted marketing systems which are the real pyramid schemes. An MLMs spreads the wealth horizontally. In our usual systems, the wealth flows from the bottom to the top. A more visible difference is the sales force. It's not composed of highly polished professionals trained in the latest marketing techniques and backed up by a well-heeled industry. The sales force of the MLM consists of ordinary blokes from the neighborhood. They're our relatives, friends and neighbors who tried the product, liked it, and wanted to make a buck promoting it. The resistance they face can be partly from their own lack of effective technique, but it is mostly due to the ignorance and prejudice of a population still influenced by the smear campaign launched by the 'big boys' to whom the MLM system of marketing and income distribution is a real threat.

I object to the blanket dismissal of MLMs and the hostility so often directed toward distributors. But mostly I despair over our nation's ability to survive given our willingness to hand over our resources to the 'big boys', putting our faith in glitz and glitter, and kneeling to power rather than sense; and the common attitude toward MLMs is just more evidence of that tendency. If we had any sense or humanitarian impulses we'd encourage and promote business models like MLMs that distribute income more equitably.

Naomi

[Guest guest]

You mean companies like the wonderful Wal-Mart? So Much for "Remaking" Its Image: Wal-Mart Sues Brain-Damaged Worker By Parks AFL-CIO Wednesday 21 November 2007 Wal-Mart has spent millions trying to convince consumers that its critics are wrong about its anti-worker actions and that it is a good company that cares about its employees and the community. But the way the company has treated Deborah Shank shows the retail giant's true colors. The company, which earned $2.9 billion last quarter, sued a former employee who suffered permanent brain damage in a car accident to get back $470,000 it spent on her medical bills. Here's the story. The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday that Deborah Shank, 52, who stocked shelves in Wal-Mart's store in Cape Girardieu, Mo., was broadsided by a tractor-trailer seven years ago, causing permanent brain damage. Unable to walk without help or communicate meaningfully with her family, she now lives in a nursing home. Wal-Mart's health insurance plan paid about $470,000 in medical expenses. But after the Shanks sued and settled with the trucking company, Wal-Mart sued the couple and demanded its money back, plus interest and legal fees - more than the $417,477 the settlement had placed in a special-needs Medicaid trust fund for Shank's future health care expenses. A federal judge ruled that Wal-Mart's health care plan gave them first dibs on any money gained by an injured employee. Such provisions aren't uncommon in health plans, and Wal-Mart isn't the first to

enforce one. To add to the tragedy, shortly after the judge ruled against the Shanks, their son, , was killed in Iraq. The Shanks have two other sons. Deborah Shank, who receives Medicaid, is not the only Wal-Mart employee receiving public health care. More than 60 percent of Wal-Mart employees - 600,000 people - are forced to get health insurance coverage from the government or through spouses' plans or live without any health insurance. Last year, the AFL-CIO released a report showing how Wal-Mart shifts health care costs to consumers and a bunch of studies showing how Wal-Mart profits from taxpayers. In the "it's legal, but is it moral" category, Wal-Mart's lawsuit shows its unrestrained greed. As the Los Angeles Times points out in an editorial today: Doing what the law allows isn't the same as doing the right thing, however. The company made itself whole at the expense of a helpless former employee who will never be whole again. Instead of having some resources to improve her care, Shank will receive only the basic services afforded her by Medicaid and Social Security. Nor will the trust fund be in a position to reimburse Medicaid (i.e., taxpayers), which stood to collect any unspent money upon Shank's death. Wal-Mart has spent the last few years working hard to rebut health care reformers, labor unions, anti-globalization groups and other critics who've argued that it puts profits ahead of humanity. While its

advertising campaigns try to put a friendlier spin on the company, its behavior toward Shank tells a different story. If Wal-Mart can't restrain itself, perhaps Congress should prevent health plans from draining settlements won by injured workers with more bills to pay. Wal-Mart's anti-worker actions could fill (and have filled) books. Earlier this year, a New Jersey court ruled a class action suit could proceed on behalf of 80,000 current and former Wal-Mart employees who say they were forced to work off the clock. Human Rights Watch issued a report showing how Wal-Mart

systematically thwarts workers' efforts to form unions. Recent reports also reveal how the retailers' reliance on goods made by cheap labor in China threatens public safety and costs nearly 200,000 jobs. Tovell <rbdc@...> wrote: Naomi, A well-thought-out post.

Thank you. --G. [sPAM][ ] In defense of MLMs Every list I've ever been on gets into this kind discussion about MLMs, and I never speak to

it. Well, this time I'm putting my 2 cents in..... Many years ago when MLMs became popular, the business community launched a massive smear campaign from which MLMs never recovered, evidence of which is the suspicion and prejudice that still invariably shows up when someone tries to promote a product through an MLM. The structure of the MLM marketing system is fairer and more equitable than our normal accepted marketing systems which are the real pyramid schemes. An MLMs spreads the wealth horizontally. In our usual systems, the wealth flows from the bottom to the top. A more visible difference is the sales force. It's not composed of highly polished professionals trained in the latest marketing techniques and backed up by a well-heeled

industry. The sales force of the MLM consists of ordinary blokes from the neighborhood. They're our relatives, friends and neighbors who tried the product, liked it, and wanted to make a buck promoting it. The resistance they face can be partly from their own lack of effective technique, but it is mostly due to the ignorance and prejudice of a population still influenced by the smear campaign launched by the 'big boys' to whom the MLM system of marketing and income distribution is a real threat. I object to the blanket dismissal of MLMs and the hostility so often directed toward distributors. But mostly I despair over our nation's ability to survive given our willingness to hand over our resources to the 'big boys', putting our faith in glitz and glitter, and kneeling to power rather than sense; and

the common attitude toward MLMs is just more evidence of that tendency. If we had any sense or humanitarian impulses we'd encourage and promote business models like MLMs that distribute income more equitably. Naomi

Be a better pen pal. Text or chat with friends inside . See how.