*poll numbers are falling: Salon's feature is on saving telemarketers

They really aren't as good as they were. The only time they do a feature on Iraq anymore is to run New Republic defense of it. They are really missing the boat on the public zietgiest.

Oh and telemarketing is not good for poor. It doesn't help most welfare mothers, and disabled people establish a good resume. The turnover is so high from the stress of being yelled at 24/7, it absolutely serves no purpose in building a good job record, and most of the money made is on credit card schemes, that harm the poor, not to mention the 30 day trials, which are a scam, because you have to remember to dial the 800 number of they charge your credit card. Most of the deals only sound good when the public doesn't realize that particular detail.

Almost daily Salon has at least 1, usually 2 articles or columnists addressing the Iraq situation. It's just not the headline every single day because there actually are other stories out there that need to be told or addressed. I would like it a lot less if it becamse the all Iraq, all the time publication. Being the zeitgeist means getting on something before it becomes a major part of the mainstream public consciousness. Salon has been pushing the iraq war opposition since the beginning and now it has entered fully into the mainstream press....

I won't even touch your second paragraph since it doesn't seem that well thought out and founded in fact. I really don't think that the poor and disabled are necessarily worried about getting a good resume as they are about actually making a salary and paying their bills. I know more than a few people who need the money, are largely unskilled, and who could lose their job due to the bill in question. I'm not saying I'm against it or for it, but the article in question was well written and made some good points even where I did disagree with it.

to articles I have already read for free elsewhere, and on other blogs that cost nothing.

as for just needing a job, well it is on average a three month job, and most end up getting fired. It is ununionized and exploitive, and on the whole more harmful than beneficial to the poor. Since it refused to address, the fact that telemarketers make most of their money on schemes that harm the poor, or that telemarketing isn't stable employment, and has a shitty record of abusing employees, I disagree that the article was well thought out. It was like a Walmart ad. where Walmart finds some dupe to say Walmart is the best place he has ever worked. It was republican reasoning, and gross. Though Walmart is a better place to work than most telemarketing establishments.

I have a paid subscription. I'd like think they aren't doing that.

Where did the telemarketing story come from?

.

you said they get their stories from other sources. Where did they get the telemarketing story?

or free. Columns aren't independent stories. They are just op/eds. During the Lewinsky scandals Salon actualy broke news. It doesn't anymore. It sucks compared to what is used to be. I subscribed for 2 yrs because I wanted them to keep it up. Their quality has deteriorated. I am not interested in renewing my subscribtion, because they offer nothing different. No breaking news, nothing, just a few columnist/bloggers.

Honestly I know people who have been doing it for several years. It is, for lack of a better word their career.

And even if it is just on average a 3 month job, what are those people going to do for employment those 3 months? Like I said, I took issue with some of what was in that article but overall it's research and reasoning was sound.

But then again I'm not looking for a publication that parrots only what I want to hear all the time and only serves to reinforce my already in place opinions and beliefs. I'm looking for a well rounded, fair source for articles and journalism covering a variety of topics. And Salon more than fits that bill. If someone is looking for someone different then it's probably not for them.

The telemarketing article wasnt' well balanced. It only presented the side of the telemarketing managers. Alot of them have long term employment. Most don't. It is exploitive miserable work. I have done it. Lasted nine months. Started losing my voice and was fired officially for saying a nasty word while the management was secretly recording me. This was in between calls mind you.

It wasn't fun work but and it took its toll on my psyche but it was work when I desparately needed it and no more strenuous or disheartening than when I was a maintenance man at a factory. And to deny that the large amount of people who are going to be let go as a result of the "do not call" list is just head in the sand thinking.

What it does to your resume, the poor and the naive who get bad credit histories because of the credit card schemes and thirty day trials. Frankly factory work is better, because most are unionized. The mentality of the telemarketers is more like a sweatshop than most American factories.s It wasn't the balanced reporting you claim it to be. It was just another op/ed.

I'm sorry but I have to weigh in. I don't think we have a right to have jobs that are inherently dishonest. Telemarketing preys on the elderly and the weak-minded. Sane people with all their faculties intact do not give out their information to strangers who call them on the phone. One of my close friends worked as a telemarketer for many years. He finally left his last job for good when his boss was arrested for fraud by the FBI. At that time, he confessed to me that it was a clean sweep -- EVERY telemarketing job he'd ever had ended with an arrest of one or more of the owners. I mean, you do realize that these "charities" who claim to be selling items for the police dept. or whatever give only a tiny fraction (if they bother to give that) to the supposed recipients of their good deeds.
And you do realize that one of the reasons you were selling these vacation "deals" to people in other states was so that local law enforcement wouldn't be able to easily locate you and arrest you when the "deals" turned out to be rip-offs?

Look, we've all done things for money that we're not proud of. It doesn't make it right. And preying on elderly and weak-minded people is the lowest of the low by my book. It is better to have no job than to be a criminal. I realize that the actual callers like my friend had almost no chance of being arrested -- he was never even called to testify in any of the cases although he was a top salesman -- so it's easy to lie to oneself about the legality of what one is doing. But truthfully it is not a good job or a decent job or a job that needs to be done.

My friend makes a lot more money now. Anyone who can sell over the phone could make more money in a commissioned sales job or another business where they have to deal with rejection -- and they can live with themselves too, which is always a nice bonus.

Telemarketing is just wrong, wrong, wrong. The people who get laid off are the lucky ones, for they will be forced to find another path -- likely, in the end, a much more profitable one. People who can sell have an unlimited potential for income if they choose their jobs wisely; it is actually downright foolish of them to waste this potential scamming people over the phone.


Just my humble opinion. You may want to get your own.