Exclusivefocus - National Association of Professional Allstate Agents ...

letters to NAPAALetters continued from page 12.my copy which was signed by me, mymanager and my TAM as required. Ofcourse, the contract had the 90 day rulein it, but what I found interesting wasthat the agreements were different. Thenew one included Expected Results andlisted them whereas the original made nomention of any results monitoring. I justignored the letter from HR. I felt theyknew what they were trying to do.I have copies of both contracts andwould be happy to share them with you.Unfortunately, I am not a NAPAA member,but I follow your progress. Businessover the last few years has really suckedand joining at this time is not an optiondue to financial constraints. I will be happyto fax you copies of these agreementsif you like. I don't know yet how strongeither is but plan on taking them to myattorney for clarification. I keep copies ofmy original contract in two different safeboxes just in case.Editor’s Response: Thanks for writing.While we do have copies of some of the contracts,we don’t have all of them. So yes, wewould be interested in copies of the agreementsyou have.Please send them by US Mail to PO Box7666, Gulfport, MS 39506.One other major difference you shouldnotice is that the contract you signed backin the 90’s offers the Termination PaymentProvision of 1.5 times the renewal book.Since this is in the contract, it cannot bemodified by revisions to the R3001 Supplement.This provision is missing in all contractssigned after November 1999. Sincethen, the provision for the TPP is found inthe Supplement, which means it can be reducedor eliminated at any time.As for Expected Results, they are referencedin the Supplement and R3001 Manual.And since these manuals are explicitlyincorporated into the contract, the ExpectedResults quotas can be imposed.In other words, contractually there is noargument for termination for failure to meetthe quotas – however, we believe the argu-ment is actually that of misclassification ofindependent contractor versus employee. Independentcontractors do not have quotas.We hope you enjoyed the last issue of theExclusivefocus magazine and took the timeto mail the postcards. We also hope that youwill reconsider supporting NAPAA withyour membership. If we reach our goal of10,000 agent members by 2010, our operatingbudget will be $3.5 million. We wouldthen have the resources to affect some majorchanges. Support from each agent is less thana $1 a day, but as long as there are agentswaiting until things change – the longer itwill take for things to change.. . . . . . . . . . . .I find it interesting that managers aretelling agents how to sell.We had a manager here in my statewho, for years, would stand in front ofagents at meetings and tell us how to sell,how to retain, etc.Approximately 1½ years ago he purchasedtwo agencies; they are now for sale.It turns out he can neither sell nor retain.Editor’s response: As the great H. L.Mencken once wrote, “Those who can – do.Those who can't – teach.”. . . . . . . . . . . .I'm not at all certain whether or notan issue that I had last year with Allstatewould help the cause in our quest to trulybe independent, but I thought I wouldshare an experience I had with AllstateFinancial.The agent who mentored me when Istarted with Allstate had been allowed toobtain his Series 7 license simply by askingAllstate Financial to open the windowfor him to take the exam. He toldme that he just requested to be allowed totake the test from his MDL, and it wasgranted. I assumed my request would alsobe granted. So, I asked my MDL at thetime about getting the license. He toldme what the process was and assured methat it shouldn't be a problem because heknew of other agents who had done thesame thing.Well, I spent about $2,000 for a hotelstay and a crash course to prep me for theSeries 7 exam. But when I returned andsubmitted my paperwork and paymentinformation to open the window for theSeries 7 exam, the Regional FinancialServices Leader (RFSL) wrote me anemail saying that my AFS productionwas not sufficient enough for them to allowme to take the exam. He also notedsome other justifications (complianceand supervisory) to deny my request. Hisemail was copied to several folks includingthe RDL and TDL. The initial replyfrom the RFSL was obviously composedand written by him.I hit "reply all" and asked him to reconsiderhis decision based on the fact Ihad already incurred a great deal of expenseand that I had been led to believeby my MDL that it was a routine matter.Perhaps they saw I was raising some legalissues. Well, about 2 weeks later I receiveda response. This time, his responseappeared to be a much more carefullycrafted email (as if prepared by the legaldepartment), but still denied my request.I was pretty hot over this issue at thetime and still am. However, I decided tolet it go because I really didn't feel therewas much use of fighting it.Let me know if you guys would likemore information on this matter.Editor’s response: Thanks for your email.This is just another example of an MDL notresearching your question before spouting offan incorrect answer. What he should havedone was say, “Let me check on that and getback to you.” Whether it was laziness, ignorance,or simply a desire to appear like heknew what he was talking about, the factis that he didn’t know and shouldn’t haveled you on a wild goose chase before investigatingthe facts. We have seen this time andagain. This is the quickest way for an MDLto lose credibility among his agents.. . . . . . . . . . . .50 — Exclusivefocus Spring 2009