This is part 2 of Former LuLaRoe employee “Billie” story shared with me last week. Billie wrote this and it’s been lightly edited. This story is directly from them about one of LuLaRoe’s favorite catch-phrases, “assume innocence”.
Assume Innocence:
A favorite phrase in the World of LuLa is “Assume Innocence” which Mark used in the Tuesday, January 30th webinar.
Well, Mark Stidham – how many times are we supposed to assume innocence when it comes to LuLaRoe? Let me count the ways:
- Disastrous launch after disastrous launch in the 19 months I was there including but not limited to Mommy & Me, Disney, Halloween Items, Elegant Items, Valentine Items and other launches too numerous to count.
- Being asked to clean up those disasters with little to no assistance from Michael Brady and anyone in accounting.
- Horribly designed Make Good and Happiness Policies with no teeth for enforcement, which made our lives miserable. These policies needed to be mandatory for the retailer base, in order to be effective.
- For those consumers who submitted claims, total incompetence from Accounting in getting checks to these people and no answers from them when any of us inquired about issues.
- The changes to the buyback, which caused numerous retail services representatives to have nervous breakdowns as a result of dealing with calls where they were ill-equipped to answer questions. This not only wasting the reps time but also the retailers.
- Essentially making accounting a protected class and placing them under a communications blackout from the rest of us, which made it impossible to get anything done or answers to any questions.
- One fiasco after another in working LuLaRoe corporate events as outlined in a previous post.
- An IT department, which can’t seem to get through a launch without some sort of technological glitch. Why schedule launches after hours when your systems and processes have such a track record of failure, huh?
- A company far too reliant on the use of Google Docs: so much so that’s it’s not even funny. I almost felt like we were Google’s Southern California office.
- Tons and tons of complaints about retailers not sending the product to their consumers and only being able to refer the worst of the worst to compliance. No mandatory time frame for sending products upon payment of invoices which would’ve eliminated the issue.
ALL CONTENT QUALIFIES UNDER FAIR USE POLICY.
FAIR USE COPYRIGHT NOTICE:
THIS SITE MAY CONTAIN COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL THE USE OF WHICH HAS NOT ALWAYS BEEN SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY THE COPYRIGHT OWNER. WE ARE MAKING SUCH MATERIAL AVAILABLE IN AN EFFORT TO ADVANCE UNDERSTANDING OF ENVIRONMENTAL, POLITICAL, HUMAN RIGHTS, ECONOMIC, DEMOCRACY, SCIENTIFIC, MULTI-LEVEL MARKETING, PYRAMID SCHEMES, AND TACTLESS AND INSENSITIVE SELLING METHODS, BLATANTLY HARASSMENT, DISCRIMINATION AND SOCIAL JUSTICE ISSUES, ETC. WE BELIEVE THIS CONSTITUTES A ‘FAIR USE’ OF ANY SUCH COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL AS PROVIDED FOR IN SECTION 107 OF THE US COPYRIGHT LAW.
IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107, THE MATERIAL ON THIS SITE IS DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PROFIT TO THOSE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A PRIOR INTEREST IN RECEIVING THE INCLUDED INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. FOR MORE INFORMATION GO TO: HTTP://WWW.LAW.CORNELL.EDU/USCODE/17/107.SHTML
IF YOU WISH TO USE COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL FROM THIS SITE FOR PURPOSES OF YOUR OWN THAT GO BEYOND ‘FAIR USE’, YOU MUST OBTAIN PERMISSION FROM THE COPYRIGHT OWNER.
THE COPYRIGHT LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES RECOGNIZES A “FAIR USE” OF COPYRIGHTED CONTENT. SECTION 107 OF THE U.S. COPYRIGHT ACT STATES:
“NOTWITHSTANDING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 106 AND 106A, THE FAIR USE OF A COPYRIGHTED WORK, INCLUDING SUCH USE BY REPRODUCTION IN COPIES OR PHONORECORDS OR BY ANY OTHER MEANS SPECIFIED BY THAT SECTION, FOR PURPOSES SUCH AS CRITICISM, COMMENT, NEWS REPORTING, TEACHING (INCLUDING MULTIPLE COPIES FOR CLASSROOM USE), SCHOLARSHIP, OR RESEARCH, IS NOT AN INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT.”
THIS BLOG AND MY YOUTUBE CHANNEL, IN GENERAL, MAY CONTAIN CERTAIN COPYRIGHTED WORKS THAT WERE NOT SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED TO BE USED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER(S), BUT WHICH I BELIEVE IN GOOD FAITH ARE PROTECTED BY FEDERAL LAW AND THE FAIR USE DOCTRINE FOR ONE OR MORE OF THE REASONS NOTED ABOVE.