Receiver Corporation
Z
It's hard to believe them with no company information anywhere.
Was anyone employed or any complaints were filed?
Thanks
pete in chicago
they could be a de facto corporation instead of a de jure corp...
just because they have the word "corporation" or "company" in their
title doesn't mean they've filed with their respective secretary of
state...could be any state
--
hope this helps
Rob Bullock
You may want to review he thread around this article:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3d4ee61c...@news.earthlink.net
--
rdb
Barb Grajewski
Don Klipstein
Rob Bullock
Klipstein) wrote:
> >Could anyone give any information about Receiver Corporation?
> >It's hard to believe them with no company information anywhere.
> >Was anyone employed or any complaints were filed?
>
> Wasn't there a thread here about them about a month ago?
Yep, it's the thread I just posted the Google address to.
--
rdb
Lance G. Grey
They called you because they liked your Resume.
You'll call people to say you liked their Resume.
They'll call people to say they liked their Resumes'
They're a Resume (culling) appreciation Society.
ESGINC3620
take an excel classes b/4 they would talk further regarding benefits and such.
i have good sources. no one could find out anything about these guys.
buyer beware!
Bob Kaufman
> title doesn't mean they've filed with their respective secretary of
> state...could be any state
Checking at the Illinois Secretary of State's office, they've been
incorporated since 1993. (I'm going by memory; I checked this about
two weeks ago.) I don't know what their deal is, but I have a "second
interview" with them tomorrow (Thu 9/12/2002) afternoon. If they're a
fraud, if they ask for any money, etc. I'll loudly report my findings
here. Otherwise, if they're legitimate, I will be equally loud with my
praise.
I find their style to be very suspicious, considering that they have
no Yellow Pages(tm) entry, their website is unusually vague, and apart
from this thread and the earlier one at the end of August 2002, there
are absolutely no online references to this company.
pete in chicago
And, they have 4 entries at the BBB site, with no complaints filed.....
http://www.bbb.com/
i think what Rob was referring to was a receivership...the only problem
with that is this: a "receiver corporation" is really a misnomer - a
corporation (altho a legal entity), is still a legal "fiction"...and as
such, fails to meet the rigors of an identifiable "trustee" who must, of
course wear two hats (viz: protecting the assets of the soon-to-be
defunct corporation AND protection of the creditors)...
if all this sounds too complicated - i apologize for being in one of my
more lucid moments
--
rob - don't blame me...that's what the nutshell says
Barb Grajewski
On Thu, 12 Sep 2002, pete in chicago wrote:
> Barb Grajewski wrote: (referring to Receiver Corporation)
>
> And, they have 4 entries at the BBB site, with no complaints filed.....
> http://www.bbb.com/
>
> i think what Rob was referring to was a receivership...the only problem
> with that is this: a "receiver corporation" is really a misnomer - a
> corporation (altho a legal entity), is still a legal "fiction"...and as
> such, fails to meet the rigors of an identifiable "trustee" who must, of
> course wear two hats (viz: protecting the assets of the soon-to-be
> defunct corporation AND protection of the creditors)...
really?
I honestly thought that there was a company out there called "Receiver
Corporation"... How dumb should I be feeling right about now??
Bob Kaufman
"Z" <zhu...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:E4qf9.434389$UU1.68675@sccrnsc03...
> Could anyone give any information about Receiver Corporation?
> It's hard to believe them with no company information anywhere.
> Was anyone employed or any complaints were filed?
Okay, I just got back from my second interview at Receiver Corporation.
Here's the skinny.
I will not work at Receiver Corporation. No way. No how. The short reason?
Because they asked for money. Four hundred and fifty dollars, to be
specific. I'll do just about _anything_ to get a good job -- drive a hundred
miles, take a training class, write a twenty page essay about how great it
would be to work for you; I might even write you some software for free. But
ask me for money? Forget it!
And now, the rest of the story...
I arrived five minutes early for my interview today. As another
writer suggested, Receiver Corporation operates out of a shared office
space. In and of itself, this is not a problem. A good friend of mine with
an established company operates out of a shared office space. This is an
"honest deception". Passers-by assume that the entire space is yours. Making
yourself look big is a natural thing for the small guy to do. This is a very
nice shared space and everybody is dressed professionally. My interviewer
was running late -- twenty minutes late. During the twenty five minutes I
sat there, the receiptionist took at least thirty phone calls. Some were for
a lawyer who uses some of the space. Others were for other companies in the
shared space. About five or six companies in all were represented in the
phone calls. Not a single call was for the Receiver Corporation.
My interviewer arrives at about twenty minutes after the hour and graciously
apologizes for his
tardiness. Apology accepted. After all, I _do_ have my hat in my hand, I'm
the one looking for a job. Let's start things off on the right foot. We sit
down in a conference room. He asks me about my sales experience and
experience interacting with Account Executives (salespeople). I tell him
that I'm a software engineer, and that my resume shows seventeen years worth
of experience in that field. We go back and forth pleasantly enough for a
few minutes. Nothing really substantial about my career history gets
articulated. He abruptly offers me the position of "Team Leader/Department
Manager". Okay, fine. According to the job description,
this job pays "$XX,000 - $XXX,000/year". (I omit the salary figures out of
fairness to Receiver Corporation. Suffice to say that it's a US$90,000
spread from a low end that's a modest salary to a high end that's in the
executive range) I asked him to narrow that down a tad for me. He said I
should expect a base salary of $XX0,000 to $XX5,000/year. (I'm omitting the
first one or two digits -- I'm not saying
which -- because I don't wish to broadcast my salary expectations to the
universe. It would be a detriment to the conversation...) Funny. The figure
he quoted was almost _exactly_ what I'd written down as my salary
expectation.
The job is described as a leader of a team of Account Executives and
Customer Service folk. Odd. I have absolutely, positively no experience in
this area, yet this gentleman is willing to pay me a _lot_ of money to do
this. As much money as I was making at my last position as a Senior Java
Programmer/Analyst.
So what's the next step? I have to complete two courses in thirty days. The
first is
Microsoft Excel. The second is focused on Computer Associates' eTrust
Intrusion Detection. (Receiver Corporation is an authorized reseller. I
suppose they take a
fair markup on it. Looks like a nice product, actually. I'm going to
download the demo and try it out.) Here's the catch. To complete the second
course, I have to schedule three appointments for an Account Executive to
give a free demo of the Intrusion Detection software. Also, I have to
schedule these appointments off of telephone lists _they_ provide, so
there's no cheating by signing up three relatives' companies. Okay, that's
fair enough. I have thirty days to complete the coursework, take online
tests for both products, schedule _and_ participate in the three
appointments that I have scheduled. Now here's the gotcha. To embark on this
coursework, I have to fork over USD 450.00 tuition. From the agreement: "...
[W]hen I complete the entire program successfully, my entire tuition will be
refunded to me." I understand this to mean that I must become proficient at
Excel and eTrust Intrusion Detection through their courseware, and I must
schedule and ride shotgun on three appointments all within thirty days,
otherwise, I'm out four
hundred fifty bucks. To be fair, if I succeed, I'm refunded my $450.00, paid
$14.00 X 40 hours/week X 4 weeks = $2240.00 for my effort. Plus I get a
high-paying job.
My interview took forty minutes. Add to that the hour long one-on-seven
cattle call I partipated in a few weeks ago, and they're into this for a
little under fifty man-minutes.
Mind you, I have a strong preference for "non-traditional" companies, which
is why I came back for the second interview in the first place. Problem is,
I've never _ever_ known a legitimate employer to ask for money up front.
There have been cases where my wife has had to buy a certain color and style
of shirt/pants for a particular waitress or department store sales position,
or when I was a kid workin' at McDonald's, where you were given one uniform,
and if you screwed that one up, you had to pay for any replacement, but not
money up front, and certainly not that much. From my point of view, there's
the appearance that they're banking on a high percentage of their applicants
to bail before confirming three sales appointments, but that's just my
opinion. If you're not an experienced telemarketer, I would imagine that
trying to get three appointments is quite an undertaking. Mind you, I have a
friend who can give me limited free access to a bank of telemarketers. I
could probably guilt him out of five man-hours worth -- plenty of time to
get three appointments scheduled.
To be fair, my interviewer did not pressure me at all to make a decision on
the spot. I told him that I would discuss it with my wife and think about it
over the weekend. And I will. I will probably accept the offer on the
condition that the tuition be waived. Of course, if they waive it for me,
I'll enthusiastically report back to the Gentle Reader. Wish me luck and
stay tuned.
SoCalMike
> fair markup on it. Looks like a nice product, actually. I'm going to
> download the demo and try it out.) Here's the catch. To complete the
second
> course, I have to schedule three appointments for an Account Executive to
> give a free demo of the Intrusion Detection software. Also, I have to
> schedule these appointments off of telephone lists _they_ provide, so
> there's no cheating by signing up three relatives' companies. Okay, that's
> fair enough. I have thirty days to complete the coursework, take online
> tests for both products, schedule _and_ participate in the three
> appointments that I have scheduled. Now here's the gotcha. To embark on
this
> coursework, I have to fork over USD 450.00 tuition
so, um... you have to pay $450 for the privelege of selling their shitty
software to 3 companies? sounds like amway on a larger scale to me.
Adam H. Kerman
>so, um... you have to pay $450 for the privelege of selling their shitty
>software to 3 companies? sounds like amway on a larger scale to me.
No money up front with Amway unless you get suckered by a dishonest
distributor.
pete in chicago
>How dumb should I be feeling right about now??
probably as dumb as i was feeling when rob suggested a re-reading of the
thread
--
you're right tho - there is a corporation called Receiver Corporation
Bob Kaufman
>> Now here's the gotcha. To embark on this
>> coursework, I have to fork over USD 450.00 tuition
> so, um... you have to pay $450 for the privelege of selling their shitty
> software to 3 companies? sounds like amway on a larger scale to me.
Remember: I want to be gracious here, as I do not want to face a libel or
slander lawsuit. :-) Anyhow, to your point, yes, you do have to pay $450 to
them. IMO, I think this $450 is a deposit that they're banking on at least
six out of every seven applicants defaulting on. Remember, if you complete
the course, you get a salary of $2240 for the month plus your $450 back.
That means they're paying out $2690. To make that up, six other applicants
must default on the obligation, for $2700. This way, the training program
pays for itself. Does that make it a fraud? Certainly not. It's just a
matter of caveat emptor; be aware that before you embark on a career with
this company, that the odds are probably against you.
In exchange for this $450, you receive courseware materials which, IMHO, are
worth substantially less than this, but again, this is only my opinion. As
far as "shitty software" is concerned, here again my goal is to be gracious.
I have always felt that although Computer Associates' software is
essentially well written, it is error-free and performs as described, it
lacks the "soul" that other companies impart unto their products. (e.g.,
Adobe, Macromedia, Symantec, Borland, and, yes, Micro$oft, too.)
Tom Johnston
In the past several weeks, I have also explored employment
opportunities with them. I went to the initial interview,
where eight of us sat in a room and filled in a
personality survey. The Receiver Corp. HR representative
rambled about how all of our resumes showed we had the
skills to work there, and now it was just a matter of finding
which of us had the correct personality. He emphasized two
things throughout his monologue: 1) they are looking for team
players; and 2) it costs Receiver Corp. $780 to train each new
employee.
Amusingly, after we left the building, I talked with two of the
other applicants in the parking garage. And I told them that
the whole thing sounded like a scam, and that the constant
reminders of the $780 training cost was probably a prelude to
the company asking the applicant to pay for part or all of the
training cost himself.
Yup, I got called for the second interview. I attended Friday
afternoon (Sept. 13) at 1PM. I told the interviewer that the
idea of my paying $450 to a potential employer for training
sounded like a losing proposition. I left knowing that I
would not be contacting them to go any further in their
process.
Here's the kicker: despite attending the second interview and
chatting with the second Receiver Corp. HR dude for 30+
minutes, I left without being told about the three sales calls
that you mentioned. Now, you could blame this on me for not
asking the correct probing questions, and you would have a
point. But... if Rcvr Corp. is going to charge me that much
money for, let's be honest, cheap training materials (the first
two weeks of training are photocopied Excel tutorials of some
kind, for crying out loud), isn't it unethical of them to
not warn me of the sales calls? I'm fairly certain they are
doing nothing illegal here. But it is slimey as all living
Hell to scam desperate job hunters with the bait of a job
based on completing some training at the applicant's expense;
and to describe the training as simple computer exercises that
can be completed in your own home, and to not mention the
really difficult part of the training, these sales calls.
Anyway, good luck to those who choose to pursue employment
there. Who knows. Maybe there are some jobs. But it sounds
to me like they make their money by scamming hopeful
job seekers with this training thing.
Chris Roth
two interviews... sounded great, unfortunately fell for the $450
"training" program and am worried now that it might have all been for
nothing!
Some things I've noted...
The BBB has info on this company at three locations, NONE answer the
phone at the numbers listed.
The BBB also lists IQResults at the same phone number, their websites
are suspiciously similar. www.receivercorporation.com and
www.iqresults.com
I've received two business cards from people there, both had the same
phone number (no one answers, leave a message on machine!!!), and the
same fax number. A fax machine does answer it, at least!
The guy said to email his address on his business card when I
completed the training, and said "someone" would email back with
information on the next step (learning the eTrust software). He
stated he would NOT be checking this address, someone does it for
him!!
ReceiverCorporation is NOT listed as an authorized reseller of
Computer Associates software, at least that I could find on their
website.
I spoke with my MCSE teacher who knows about most consulting and
support places in the area and has NEVER heard of them.
At least the job description was in my field (for IT Support Manager)
and had a wide range of pay which could cover low to high ranges for
the job. Maybe that's why I went in for it. :-( Took three and a
half hours to get home from the first interview! Chicago traffic sure
can be punishing! lol
Hopefully the worst is I'm out wasted time :-( At this point all I
can do is help warn people. With the application and interview alone
they do get a lot of your personal information! A lot worse could
happen then just lost money I'd think :-( Makes me nervous now...
So if someone has more information, please post or email me... I've
also written the email addresses on their business cards, if I get a
reply I'll post so everyone can know the latest news on them.
Thanks!
Tracey
"Chris Roth" <cro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d5dfb688.02092...@posting.google.com...
> The guy said to email his address on his business card when I
> completed the training, and said "someone" would email back with
> information on the next step (learning the eTrust software). He
> stated he would NOT be checking this address, someone does it for
> him!!
Isn't that what admin. assistants (secretaries) are for?
Gregory Lindsey
> two interviews... sounded great, unfortunately fell for the $450
> "training" program and am worried now that it might have all been for
> nothing!
Chris:
I, too, fell for their program. It's strange; I had bad vibes throughout
both "interview" sessions -- namely that they were far too evasive and
vague, that the position they have open is an "IT Support Manager" position
despite the fact that I certainly haven't the experience for that yet -- but
mostly that it was just *too easy*. I wish I had listened to my gut and
high-tailed it out of there.
However, I have a special case: I had noted that, as I'm going on my
honeymoon next week, I would not start training until October 5th. He told
me to send an e-mail Monday morning to let them know that fact. I noted
that, seeing as how I would be on vacation, I wouldn't exactly be near a
computer at that time. So he told me to email Saturday morning before I
left. I told him I could mail as soon as I got back home, but he insisted
on having me mail at the last possible moment I could; I have no idea why.
Finally, after talking things over a lot with my friends and family, as well
as perusing everything here (which I should've done in the first place), I
decided that I'm not going to take this. They've already temp-charged my
card, but I still have 60 days to dispute it. I emailed the recruiter back,
noting that my signature on the acceptance form was with the understanding
that I would be billed when I started training, not when I received the
materials, and I would be happy to return them to him at my expense -- but I
do *not* want to continue with the program, and will have to dispute the
charge if it is not refunded. Sounds reasonable, right? Reasonable for any
reputable company, anyway. They may have my signature, but they also have a
huge note signed by the recruiter saying "Will start training on Oct 5th",
and I have a copy of it. If they're scammers, and they raise a fuss about
it, they draw attention to themselves. Not very good for business.
I won't know how things go until I get back from vacation, but hopefully
they go smoothly. In the meantime, I suggest that anyone who believes
they're dealing with shady practices inform a media outlet such as Target 5
Investigations; they deal with consumer fraud, typically, but I think this
sort of practice would fall under their field of interest. If they truly
aren't a legitimate company, they aren't going to like bright lights. If
they are, then they can exonerate themselves. But if I've been burned, I'll
be damned if I let others fall victim to the same fate.
And, heck, IANAL, but if they're not legitimate, I believe there's always
the possibility of a class-action lawsuit. $450 may not be worth pursuing
alone, but combined across victims it becomes a substantial sum of cash.
GSL
Gregory Lindsey
http://www2.ncsu.edu/cc/edu/excel_trng/excel_intro.html
$780 for a tutorial copied off the web? Intriguing.
I'm getting more furious by the minute. It'll be awfully hard to get in the
mood for my honeymoon.
GSL
Gregory Lindsey
news:ed825f44.02091...@posting.google.com...
><snip>
>
> I'm fairly certain they are
> doing nothing illegal here. But it is slimey as all living
> Hell to scam desperate job hunters with the bait of a job
> based on completing some training at the applicant's expense;
> and to describe the training as simple computer exercises that
> can be completed in your own home, and to not mention the
> really difficult part of the training, these sales calls.
But isn't that the issue? Illegal or not, it is slimy as hell, and I'd bet
that the media would be interested in a story like that. A company
allegedly preying on hopeful job seekers? Sounds like ratings gold to me...
GSL
Gregory Lindsey
news:%alg9.464152$UU1.75405@sccrnsc03...
> Remember: I want to be gracious here, as I do not want to face a libel or
> slander lawsuit. :-)
I, too, wouldn't want to face such a lawsuit. However, I had been under the
impression that a libel or slander suit has to be based on the fact that the
defendant gave provably false information. Saying "this company is a scam"
when it is in fact not would constitute libel or slander; however, saying
"this company might be a scam" is voicing a possibility and is thus free
speech, isn't it?
And frankly, would the training program not be a fraud if no actual job
positions result from completing it? Or if applicants are in some way
impeded from successful completion of the program?
GSL
pete in chicago
Gregory Lindsey wrote:
> I'm getting more furious by the minute. It'll be awfully hard to get in the
> mood for my honeymoon.
>
> GSL
greg - you need to relax and conserve your energy for your honeymoon...
forget about Receiver Corporation - think about pina coladas and edible
panties...
--
oh - and don't forget the bottle of honey (large size - Jewel has it on
sale)
Stan Brown
> However, I had been under the
>impression that a libel or slander suit has to be based on the fact that the
>defendant gave provably false information. Saying "this company is a scam"
>when it is in fact not would constitute libel or slander; however, saying
>"this company might be a scam" is voicing a possibility and is thus free
>speech, isn't it?
It would depend on what the jury thought.
Part of the determination of defamation (libel and slander) is, as
you say, whether the statements are false. Another part is whether
the plaintiff's reputation is damaged by them.
I think a competent attorney (no, I'm not one) could either attack
your second statement as libelous or defend it as not libelous,
based on the context and how an ordinary person would interpret the
statement in context.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
"US-Germany relations slide to an all-time low"
-- /Cortland Standard/ headline, 24 Sep 2002
I guess 1917-1918 and 1941-1945 don't count.
Gary Indiana
> Part of the determination of defamation (libel and slander) is, as
> you say, whether the statements are false. Another part is whether
> the plaintiff's reputation is damaged by them.
IANAL either, but I'm related to one. At one time, I was being accused &
threatened with libel and slander, and I was advised at the the time that
libel & slander are ONLY such if they're false, no matter how damaging.
If you damage someone with truth, tough shit for them.
Think about it -- that's what journalism is all about. When have you ever
heard of Madonna (for example) suing a legitimate music reviewer for
saying she had the vocal range of a penny whistle, or a bad album, even
though that's derogatory? On the other hand, we DO hear of her suing
tabloids that make up stories.
Otherwise, no one could ever say anything true about corporations. Enron
was torn up one side and down the other by the media -- would they not
have sued for defamation of character if that were an option?
If you state the facts about being screwed by Receiver, there's nothing
they can do to you (legally). They may *threaten* you, but they won't
follow up. They can't.
Stan Brown
>Stan Brown <qx1...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>> Part of the determination of defamation (libel and slander) is, as
>> you say, whether the statements are false. Another part is whether
>> the plaintiff's reputation is damaged by them.
>
>IANAL either, but I'm related to one. At one time, I was being accused &
>threatened with libel and slander, and I was advised at the the time that
>libel & slander are ONLY such if they're false, no matter how damaging.
In the U.S., truth is an absolute defense to most defamation cases,
as you say. (It is not a defense in other cases that might seem like
defamation, such as speaking against the meat industry in Texas, or
pointing out a problem with security in a software product.)
What I was getting at was that it is possible to speak the literal;
truth but phrase it in such a way as to give the opposite
impression. Think of Marc Antony's refrain, "And Brutus is an
honorable man." By the time he was done, his audience had got his
real message, which was that Brutus was the opposite of honorable.
What I am saying is that I think literally true words might not
protect you if an attorney convinces a jury that the intended
meaning (and the meaning that an average person would take from
them) is false and damaging.
I'm going to post a query to misc.legal.moderated, under the title
"When is truth not truth?" Interested persons may wish to follow it
there.
TacoGod
I also have gone for my second interview and have been through the
EXACT situation above. From day 1 I had a feeling it was a scam...
Has Anyone ever worked for Receiver Corporation?? I'm curious to get
an inside view of the company.
Amy Hiser
trying to take advantage of people. I just want to shout from the mountain
top DON'T PAY FOR A JOB and Don't pay to have your resume to be dispursed to
1,000's of recruiters. Personally, I think these "scams" have always been
around but when the economy was so good, we didn't pay much attention to
them.
If you're a Java programmer and you are conducting an effective job search,
you should be getting plenty of recruiter calls. Here in Dallas, the
developers are getting picked up steadily.
Amy Hiser
www.resumevine.com
TacoGod <godo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:c3df82bd.02100...@posting.google.com...
Gregory Lindsey
news:s4Fn9.49072$DN4.7229@sccrnsc01...
> If you're a Java programmer and you are conducting an effective job
search,
> you should be getting plenty of recruiter calls. Here in Dallas, the
> developers are getting picked up steadily.
I suppose I should check out that area more -- I've been concentrating my
search primarily in the Chicagoland and Central Illinois area (might go back
to school a bit).
But anyways, to stay on the topic, it has been a week since I initially
wrote Receiver asking them to give me some client contacts so I could ask
their alleged clients about their business dealings. I also requested them
to refund my original training fee, on the grounds that I had been under the
impression that I would be charged when my training was to start (which
would have been today), rather than immediately. (I have a signed statement
on the receipt confirming that I wouldn't start training until the 5th.) I
informed them that I would have no choice but to dispute the charge if it
was not cancelled. As of today I have received no reply to my email
whatsoever, nor did they refund the charge. Frankly, I'm not surprised.
My plans are to file complaints with the Better Business Bureau, the
Illinois Attorney General Consumer Protection Division, and the Federal
Trade Commission, not to mention calling Billing Disputes, if I do not hear
from them in the next few days. I urge anyone else who suspects the company
of deceptive business practices to do the same. If they are not conducting
legitimate business, I don't want others to fall victim to such a trap.
GSL
Bob Ward
<glin...@xnet.com> wrote:
>-:
>-:My plans are to file complaints with the Better Business Bureau, the
>-:Illinois Attorney General Consumer Protection Division, and the Federal
>-:Trade Commission, not to mention calling Billing Disputes, if I do not hear
>-:from them in the next few days. I urge anyone else who suspects the company
>-:of deceptive business practices to do the same. If they are not conducting
>-:legitimate business, I don't want others to fall victim to such a trap.
I'm pretty sure that "calling Billing Disputes" won't protect your
rights - all of my credit cards specify that you must make your
complaint by writing to the address provided.
--
This space left intentionally blank.
Bob Kaufman
> rights - all of my credit cards specify that you must make your
> complaint by writing to the address provided.
I used to do some Java programming over at Discover Card. Great group
of people. Although you are correct in asserting that you will not
"protect your rights" unless you make your complaint in writing,
calling customer service and initiating a chargeback request will
usually yield positive results almost immediately. You will want to
follow up the call with a letter that refers to the call. Send it to
the address indicated in your Cardmember Agreement. A note of caution,
however: your Cardmember Agreement most likely has a clause that
states that your card is for "personal use only" or some phrasing like
that. What that means is that if a whole bunch of people get snookered
by a pyramid scheme or the like, the credit card company is not
obliged to refund any money due to your violating the Cardmember
Agreement. After all, a pyramid scheme constitutes a business use of
your card. "Personal use" means the purchase of goods and services for
personal consumption. "Tuition" as a condition of employment sounds
like "personal use", however it's sufficiently gray that the credit
card company can make trouble if they're so inclined. Again, this is
generally invoked when in the case of a widespread fraud, when they're
staring down a six or seven figure refund.
Lance G. Grey
The best option is to agree to pay the employment "tuition" but when the
bill is due, tell them to take it out of your pay in equal installments.
If they don't hire you the fraud is exposed.
RECEIVER CORPORATION RESPONSE
> Could anyone give any information about Receiver Corporation?
> It's hard to believe them with no company information anywhere.
> Was anyone employed or any complaints were filed?
>
Receiver Corporation Response
Who is adaptable, who is wanting and willing to work the phones and
the clients to deploy
and support our solutions--and that is it in a nut shell!!!!
We desire adaptable people, as we say "... learners, leaders, and
adaptable people who
understand the importance of individual productivity..."
I was shocked to find these postings this morning. We have never filed
and it is not our
intention to file slander or libel lawsuits against anyone, everyone
has a right to their own
opinion, but I do wish to have accurately stated the process and
purpose we utilize to
select candidates.
I am aware of the speeches we use to motivate, and I stand by that all
persons that we call
back for a second interview are very capable individuals, they may not
want our work or
desire our structure, but tell me, who is more honest, a Motorola, or
Lucent whom
interview and promise the world, only after years of service they let
you go with seemingly
no regard. Or us who give you a very accurate taste, even an honest
bitter taste of what is
expected as an employee--we are not for everyone--everyone is not
adaptable or let me
say, everyone is not wanting of the work we have available--and this
process allows us
both the opportunity to get a solid understanding.
I stand by every person employed here, although I hope to shelter them
from this
negativity, I stand by, that every person will clean toilets, call
clients, support the client
phones--what ever-- no job is above or below any one here--and I
really believe that is the
mentality that this process creates. Some people see the glass as half
empty and are above
the work we have to offer, and they filter out, and others take a
positive approach and
give it their all--two totally different personality types--this bad
press will keep good
people from challenging themselves and providing value to us and them.
yes..you will have to be adaptable
yes..we will have you commit to our team
yes..you will have to learn some material
yes..you will schedule appointments like many of our CSR are
designated to do
yes..you will sit with an account executive on sales presentations, we
want every member
to be fully cross trained and aware on how we deploy.
no..you will not sell anything--come on, you do not know the offering
that well yet.
no..you will never be asked to recruit (like Amway)
Come one everyone, this is a difficult economy, and some have way too
much time on
their hands, and run a muck on wild tangents, but do not attack us, we
are fighting, just
like you, to build a greater future. If you have specific expectations
from a hiring
company, fine, but why knock our approach? Spend your time building
yourself up
producing a valued result, not dragging us down and wasting your
energy and time. I have
read your issues and we will clarify our needs as much as possible.
We in no way discriminate against any candidate, with this program I
could not tell you
the gender, age, race, creed, color or national origin of any
candidate, but I can tell in their
emails and execution of the tasks; who has call stamina, and who is
truly adaptable and
willing to learn. From students starting in their first CSR position
to experienced, 20 year
career veterans--All begin in the same spot and expose their true
personality, and will they
fit, do they want to blend on one of our teams.
Due to this flurry of negativity I have ceased all hiring, I can hope
this mess does not get
out of control, for in spite of all of the horrible words that have
been stated, we do have a
commitment to the people who work hard for our organization.
I have been slow to respond to people, but if you chose to email me
directly at
mark....@receivercorporation.com, or call 708-352-3800 and leave a
message, I will
get back eventually, this mess may take me some time.
Sincerely,
Mark Warren
Vice President
RECEIVER CORPORATION RESPONSE
assumptions, I
wish we could have gotten you off to a positive start, but this
process is not based on a
number failings, as much a number of completing, when appointments are
set and account
executives make presentation it is a numbers game to what quantity it
takes to obtain new
clients, we need them to succeed, not fail. You are entitled to your
opinion, but you are
mistaken.
Sincerely,
Mark Warren
Vice President
"Bob Kaufman" <gutterboy_...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<7Cag9.249693$kp.8...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>...
Lance G. Grey
[Baloney snipped]
Just hire some of the people you culled from Monster.com
and cut the "We like your resume" Crap.
Lance G. Grey
> Receiver Corporation Response
>
> Who is adaptable, who is wanting and willing to work the phones and
> the clients to deploy
> and support our solutions--and that is it in a nut shell!!!!
>
> We desire adaptable people, as we say "... learners, leaders, and
> adaptable people who
> understand the importance of individual productivity..."
...and any job seeker willing to part with money before they're hired.
DSL Girl
This is something I posted on 8/5/02 after visiting a Receiver Corp
interview....
"I just came back from a Receiver Corporation interview. Beware, they
weren't hiring for specific jobs. They invite you into a room full of
other interviewees (7-10 people), and ask you to fill out personal
information and other references. They make $9 million annually, with
400-500 people. This works out to $22,500/year in revenue. This is
horribly low. Most Fortune 500's hover in the $250,000+ range.
I walked out, thinking it was a scam, especially when the sales guy
started telling us they're also a freight company and a candy company.
Plus, he waffled between "yes, we sell stocks and options" and "no we
don't, we write software". He also didn't know whether or not Receiver
Corp was a member company of the exchanges (the financial industry is
a regulated one). I asked for the name of the software products they
sell, and they said I can't tell you!
Their website is practically useless (no contact info, no product or
services listing, no jobs listing, etc. You can't determine what their
real business is, other than "asset management." Their asset
management, at least as described by their sales guy, is not
consistent with the industry definition (help manage mutual funds).
The one thing that shocked me is that if you had questions, he told us
to write them down and pass it into the Legal Dept. Legal dept?? For a
company of 400-500, you should have a Human Resources Dept to handle
401k, and other benefits questions.
So, I ran, not walked, away from this office."
Chris Roth
people could see where this was going.
I found it quite amazing that Receiver Corporation actually wrote:
> Due to this flurry of negativity I have ceased all hiring, I can hope
> this mess does not get
> out of control, for in spite of all of the horrible words that have
> been stated, we do have a
> commitment to the people who work hard for our organization.
During my first interview, the guy actually said they expect all new
hires to bring in about $3 million each worth of business for them.
And they are stopping hiring because of a few negative newsgroup
posts? :-)
Either way, my emails have gone unanswered. Even Mr. Christopher
Price who told me to email him when I was done with my training, or if
I had questions did not reply. They didn't write or call to check on
how the training was going. If I didn't have their business cards I
wouldn't even have a way to contact them, since the "training kit" i
was supposed to mail back didn't come with a return envelope or
address.
They have not had any communication with me since my second interview.
That definately doesn't look good, since they wanted to hire me for a
specific position! :-) Were they planning on filling it and just
paying me for all my training ( the $14 per hour for four weeks
training ) and then saying they filled it? Or coming up with some
excuse since I took too long and keeping my money?
It definately makes me wonder. But I wasn't so curious I was going to
risk my money, so fortunately I've got that back!
IF receiver corporation is a legit company, I'd be quite interested in
seeing them in action. They seem so disorganized now, I don't see how
they can have "never laid a single person off since they've opened in
1986."
PLUS, who would want to work and sell software for a company that has
never been heard of! Not me. Receiver who? Oh yeah, that's the
company I read about in the newsgroups!
All I've got out of this so far was a few wasted hours, a poor quality
printed out excel tutorial copied from a public website, and a great
learning experience. At least my eyes are wider open now.
Maybe this is just a sign, the only companies who contacted me first
from my Monster.com resume have been Primerica and now Receiver
Corporation. BOTH asked for money up front.
And I confirmed with everyone at my first interview, no one contacted
Receiver Corporation first, they contacted us. In fact they were
pretty persistant, I think they called 5 times leaving messages before
I was actually there.
Good luck to all, more information out there like this definately
would have saved me some wasted time.
cro...@yahoo.com (Chris Roth) wrote in message news:<d5dfb688.02092...@posting.google.com>...
Brent P
> Maybe this is just a sign, the only companies who contacted me first
> from my Monster.com resume have been Primerica and now Receiver
> Corporation. BOTH asked for money up front.
I was wondering when someone was going to mention primerica, what
appears to be the scam arm of citigroup. When I was looking for a
job earlier this year, I got calls from probably 4-5 different
primerica people. I kept telling them I wasn't interested and it
sounded like a pyramid scheme.
Although I did get legit companies contacting me from monster,
careerbuilder, and hotjobs. Nothing that turned into a job, but
they were legit companies and I did get one interview from one. (A
company that supplied parts to another I worked for actually)
I could have had interviews at another when I was still at the old
job but the position just sounded the same pain I wanted to leave that
job to get away from so I declined to persue it and just make
it to my vesting date. There were various recruiters as well, and
I got some interviews out of them as well.
Ultimately, it was me picking a posting that sounded like a good job and
replying to it that worked.
Neil
I just went through the same process as those described in the above
posts though the company is called ISCS Corporation and is located in
shared space at 30 S. Wacker (they claim to have offices in Boston and
New York). The same people are at ISCS as mentioned above - Mr. Chris
Price, Mr. Glenn Smith and Mr. Rupert. The web site for ISCS
(www.iscscorporation) looks identical to that of
recievercorporation.com. Take a look for yourself. Now, I did not fall
for the "pay us now and we will refund your money" trick, so I can't
honestly say that this is a scam - but you can bet I'm going to find
out! There is NO WAY that ISCS can claim that they have 450 employees
in Boston and New York who are providing web devleopment services and
YOU CAN NOT find a single office location anywhere or phone number. If
this company is selling anything - it would appear to be the HOPES of
getting a good paying job.
If others in Chicago are paying for the training please email me. I
would like to bring these people to justice if they are selling false
hopes. Likewise, if you are an employee of the company and selling web
development or any other legit service, I would like to know.
Thanks.
Neil
trent
> I just went through the same process as those described in the above
> posts though the company is called ISCS Corporation and is located in
> shared space at 30 S. Wacker (they claim to have offices in Boston and
> New York).
Where in the 30 S. Building? I know people there, I'll sniff around...
trent
Gregory Lindsey
news:660be762.02102...@posting.google.com...
> would like to bring these people to justice if they are selling false
> hopes. Likewise, if you are an employee of the company and selling web
> development or any other legit service, I would like to know.
And you know, that's really all it would take, wouldn't it? Some sort of
proof. Demonstrable service. Client testimonials. *Employee*
testimonials, and I'm not talking the cryptic newsgroup posts from the
alleged vice president that have appeared here. Perhaps a website beyond
the prepackaged Flash demonstrations? Keyword hits on Google of *any* kind?
I would have thought a company dealing with web development would have some
sort of actual web presence, wouldn't you?
Too bad hindsight is 20/20.
GSL
Neil
Let me know what you find out.
N
trent <tr...@trentland.com> wrote in message news:<3DB40...@trentland.com>...
TacoGod
persons that we call
back for a second interview are very capable individuals, they may not
want our work or
desire our structure, but tell me, who is more honest, a Motorola, or
Lucent whom
interview and promise the world, only after years of service they let
you go with seemingly
no regard. Or us who give you a very accurate taste, even an honest
bitter taste of what is
expected as an employee--we are not for everyone--everyone is not
adaptable or let me
I WOULD LOVE TO BITCH SMACK THIS PERSON
Calling Motorola and Lucent Dishonest for laying off employees.... O
MY. Sounds like a desperate attempt to gain the readers
respect/attention (I don't know).
I personally would call laying-off employees A RECESSION.
"Or us who give you a very accurate taste, even an honest
bitter taste".... I AM SO ANGRY AT THIS STATEMENT. I was given
nothing accurate at either of the "interviews." An honest bitter
truth about the company would have been nice... but I didn't get that
either.
TacoGod
>
> Who is adaptable, who is wanting and willing to work the phones and
> the clients to deploy
> and support our solutions--and that is it in a nut shell!!!!
I think that my skills as a programmer are a little much for "working
the phones"
> We desire adaptable people, as we say "... learners, leaders, and
> adaptable people who
> understand the importance of individual productivity..."
that says to me... COMMISION Based SALES
> I was shocked to find these postings this morning.
I'm surprised this guy knows how to access the internet. He probably
had to call one of his "Support Managers"
[snip]
> desire our structure, but tell me, who is more honest, a Motorola, or
> Lucent whom
[snip]
I left a previous post to this statement.
> I stand by every person employed here, although I hope to shelter them
> from this
> negativity,
[snip]
O my...
> yes..you will have to be adaptable
COMMISION Based SALES
> yes..we will have you commit to our team
COMMISION Based SALES
> yes..you will have to learn some material
COMMISION Based SALES (calling scripts)
> yes..you will schedule appointments like many of our CSR are
> designated to do
COMMISION Based SALES
> yes..you will sit with an account executive on sales presentations, we
> want every member
> to be fully cross trained and aware on how we deploy.
COMMISION Based SALES
> no..you will not sell anything--come on, you do not know the offering
> that well yet.
> no..you will never be asked to recruit (like Amway)
I do have to agree with him here.... They did hire they're own
recruiters. :)
> Come one everyone, this is a difficult economy, and some have way too
> much time on
> their hands, and run a muck on wild tangents, but do not attack us, we
> are fighting, just
> like you, to build a greater future.
[SNIP]
"wild tangents"... he makes it sound like we made up all our
experiences with the company.
I agree with him here... I should be getting back to my REAL work
instead of ranting about the useless nature of Receiver Corp.
Thanks for reading...
Marty
W. Sanders-Unrein
>
>>desire our structure, but tell me, who is more honest, a Motorola, or
>>Lucent whom
>
>
Earlier this week I attended an outplacement seminar given by a large
firm. We were warned of two firms to stay away from and neither was
Motorola or Lucent but rather the subject of this thread.