Pink Truth, as all my readers are well aware, does not hold this same conviction. They operate under a different model altogether. I think it can best be described as, "Say whatever you want, tell everyone that it is the truth, delete and ban anyone that disagrees."
Case in point - Pink Truth copies Mary Kay directors survey.
Pink Truth Premise: Mary Kay directors don't make any money (or at the very least 'barely any' money)
Supporting fact: They pay their assistants anywhere from $8 to $12 per hour.
Now if you, like me, are scratching your head, saying, "Wait a tic, don't they have to be making money in order to pay someone else money?" than you are in luck... Tracy has this genius explanation.
"I guess none of these sound too bad, especially considering that in my area, directors only "paid with product." That's because they really couldn't afford to pay anything at all, with what little they were making as MK directors."
Am I the only one confused?
Accusation - Mary Kay directors can't afford to pay assistants because they don't make enough money.
Proof - Mary Kay directors (in this example that we are providing for proof of our accusation) pay their assistants, in most cases better than most retail/part time jobs.
I just can't get it to add up. Can anyone help me with this?
Posts
If they pay those rates (on time) with money, then they are paying fairly. I would only object for those who try to "pay" with product instead of money, because you can't send a Creamy Cleanser to the electric company or to your landlord. But 8 to 12 bux per hour seems like a pretty fair rate for that type of work. I would not complain about that at all.
ReplyDeleteWe all know, pt will twist anything so it is negative if it has to do with MK.
ReplyDeleteFrom $8.75 - $15.00 for part time work is as much if not more than any of our part time jobs pay in my area. (and I haven't heard of one around here that gives benefits for part time employees without cost (a large cost).
I am sure that to find an assistant most probably run an ad in the paper or put it on craiglist or something similiar to that. If one was not interested in the ad, they didn't need to apply. If they applied and then decided that they didn't want the job, they simply had to turn it down.
As long as the assistant gets paid timely, I am sure they have no problem with their job.
Personally, I wouldn't want to work for only product, but I could see if perhaps someone wanted alot of MK and couldn't afford what they wanted, that bartering and exhanging work for product wouldn't be bad, but once the assistant received the amount of product she wanted, I am sure she would want to be paid in cash and who would blame her.
Now let's go further, many parttimes work for an hourly rate at the hours the establishment schedules them and that is all they get is a paycheck. (Perhaps a discount on products from that business). So if we have a director that in addition to the wages she pays, she also supplies her assistant with her drink of choice and gives her a full gas tank once a month, and extends a discount on products, I thought stuff like that was called "perks".
So instead of saying, wow, that's great, now pt is going to make fun of the perks? I find it comical.
The most ironic part is that the letter isn't from an assistant complaining about what she is getting, it is simply a director asking what other directors pay so that she can be fair when she looks for an assistant for her office. And this is bad, how?
I certainly would not complain about the drinks, and gasoline is expensive! I would consider the gift of gasoline to be very generous.
ReplyDeleteBenefits...yeah. That would be kind of ridiculous and unrealistic under the circumstances. I sort of can't believe anyone even brought that up!