Q Talk

[Puppy Lips]

---

@pieman12 wrote:

@Puppy Lips 

Well how about all the years she gave you her time.

If you only had her as an employee, you must not have had a business that was busy enough to attract others wanting to even apply there.

Sounds like you weren't very appreciative in having this poor girl there at all.

Hope she left for someone who appreciated her.

---

@pieman12 omg.  She was PAID for all her time and work at our company.  Plus she had the opportunity to earn bonuses.  It is a small company and there was no need to hire anyone else. Just because she did not get yearly raises does not mean she was not appreciated.  There is nothing "Poor Girl" about her.  We moved the company out of state and she moved on as well.

[Puppy Lips]

---

@ciao_bella wrote:

@Puppy Lips 

I agree with @RescueLover .  If you value a loyal worker, you should be the one to give raises without being asked.  As far as owning a business, my mother owned a business for 40 years until she was diagnosed with ovarian cancer.  The reason she held on to her employees and didn't have a revolving door, was because she treated them fairly, respected the hard work they did for her and she rewarded them for it with yearly raises.  

---

@ciao_bella So yearly raises, with no additional work or productivity, no matter how the company is doing?  Sounds like a Government or Union job.  Of course we valued her.  She was paid for her work and had the opportunity to earn bonuses.  We did not have a revolving door.  But if a company does, then it is time to rethink their pay structure.

[ciao_bella]

@Puppy Lips   My mother was an excellent business woman who valued her employees for the quality of work they did for her.  She didn't expect them to 'do more work' in order to receive a raise or bonus.  In doing so, they were loyal to her and the business, honest and trustworthy.  

[Kachina624]

---

@jackthebear wrote:

 The bigger question is why do they need more hosts when there are already too many?

---

@jackthebear.  Unless you have an inside track, you have no idea what commitments and plans QVC has for the future.  You also don't have host job descriptions and don't know what duties they're assigned to perform  when not on tv. 

How, with your scant knowledge, can you say they have too many hosts?

[BoopOMatic]

@BlueFinch Very astute comment.

[Kachina624]

Every guest or vendor Dan ever introduced was his "old friend or buddy" from years ago.  You'd think with all these connections, finding another job would be a breeze.

[Puppy Lips]

---

@BlueFinch wrote:

Some feel that the culling of two of the older hosts, had nothing to do with age, as younger folks were fired, too. Well, I'm not convinced, because we've seen this in other work environments. Even at my former workplace.

I was privy, in my role, to some of the negative comments about our older staff. Yet, their work was top notch and they were always called on to train the new, young staff. Although they had earned their higher salaries, extra personal time off, etc., it became a burden for the bottom line. 

With Q layoffs, the opportunity arose to lose two older hosts. It was likely financially beneficial for the Q. It's how things work these days. People no longer retire with accolades for a job well done and the gold watch. In fact, in some settings, some are escorted off with security, after their final bow. 

The Q has had several new hires, in the last year, or two, but I haven't seen one YET that is a new hire, older senior, although they have an age range to 65. That's very telling. 

And, all of this is why, I think Jane T works so hard to hold onto her spot, which she's often criticised for. You do what you have to do. If they want more animation and performance, it has to be given. It's a competitive role, which is why I hate to criticise any of hosts.

---

@BlueFinch I agree with everything  you said, though it does not make me like Jane Treacy any better.  It is a shame that this is the way it is these days.  I think our parents' generation had it better in many respects.  Pensions were much more prevalent.  It seems they really benefited from the stock market (at least my parents and in-laws fared much better than we are).  I have heard it from several sources that our generation (baby boomers) is not faring as well rinancially as our parents.

[KathyM23]

Did you catch the masterful stroryteller in @Major Shopper  post?  The story telling is what I see so many complaints about on this forum.  I happen to like the stories of the hosts and maybe that is why the ones posters complain about the most are trying to be what QVC is looking for in the ads for new hosts by telling their stories.

[Packersfan1265]

---

@BlueFinch wrote:

Some feel that the culling of two of the older hosts, had nothing to do with age, as younger folks were fired, too. Well, I'm not convinced, because we've seen this in other work environments. Even at my former workplace.

I was privy, in my role, to some of the negative comments about our older staff. Yet, their work was top notch and they were always called on to train the new, young staff. Although they had earned their higher salaries, extra personal time off, etc., it became a burden for the bottom line. 

With Q layoffs, the opportunity arose to lose two older hosts. It was likely financially beneficial for the Q. It's how things work these days. People no longer retire with accolades for a job well done and the gold watch. In fact, in some settings, some are escorted off with security, after their final bow. 

The Q has had several new hires, in the last year, or two, but I haven't seen one YET that is a new hire, older senior, although they have an age range to 65. That's very telling. 

And, all of this is why, I think Jane T works so hard to hold onto her spot, which she's often criticised for. You do what you have to do. If they want more animation and performance, it has to be given. It's a competitive role, which is why I hate to criticise any of hosts.

---

Jane specifically said she would keep calling David "Honey" so often because it annoyed so many people.  That is someone who is obnoxious, arrogant and entitled, not someone trying to do what is needed to keep her job.