Netshops and unemployment benefits

Are you getting your unemployment benefits yet? If you're still unemployed due to the layoff, you should be by now - unless you had a huge vacation balance and got a larger severance package than I've heard of.

Someone emailed me about a discussion they had with a representative from the Nebraska Workforce Development office. I'm going to post the email because it goes into detail about the situation. (All names have been removed to protect the innocent.)

Apparently, severance pay for a number of Netshops employees was not reported accurately (whether by the individuals or by Netshops is unclear). This has resulted in some former Netshops employees being overpaid unemployment benefits. The adjudicator said that Netshops has been a nightmare to work with during this. The end result of this is that there are people who have been receiving benefits when they, apparently, were not entitled, and will have to pay whatever they have received back to the state.

The initial misunderstanding seems to have come from confusion regarding vacation pay and sick pay. The state differentiates between the two, and Netshops does not, so Workforce was unsure how to pay out benefits. Then, with the severance, the former employees were asked if they received anything, but Netshops was to provide the amount, and this wasn't done in a timely manner, according to workforce.
Workforce stated that they contacted Netshops numerous times in an attempt to clarify, but Netshops did not get back in a reasonable amount of time.

I certainly don't think that Netshops was intentionally trying to screw us over, but their slow response time to Workforce's inquiries amounts to the same thing, at least for some of those involved in the last round of layoffs.

Not sure, if you can use this in the blog or not, but my attempts to get any sort of accurate information from Workforce has been slowed by weeks by Netshops lack of timely response.

Is anyone else having this problem? Have any of you out there heard of similar issues with Workforce? Please let us know!! (As always, I won't post your info or your emails unless it's ok with you.)

Netshops not on Omaha's Best Places to Work list for 2007

Congrats Doug! You've taken a company that was on the list 2 years running and dropped them from the list. Is that the 'scalability' you were hoping to achieve with this recent round of layoffs? The 'efficiencies gained'? Who needs another award to clutter the office?

Back to the subject at hand. Netshops isn't on the list. I wonder why? Couldn't have anything to do with the recent layoffs, the increased work load on the remaining employees, the news that the Thralow reps weren't going to be allowed to stay in Duluth (like they were told when the purchase initially went through), the corporate churn - laying off employees just to hire more to replace them (in an attempt to appear more profitable in the short term), or changing people's jobs without regard to what their future goals are, either on a personal or professional basis.

I bet that last one is what really hurt Netshops in the voting. Yes, change is inevitable, but people also like some job security and knowledge that they are growing with the company. Moving someone from a position where they're the person resolving issues with vendors and talking about issues with store management to a phone rep position isnt going to win you points. Demoting an employee after they've busted their ass for you all holiday season (or longer in many cases) isn't much of a 'reward'.

Best Places to Work in Omaha 2007

Winning companies with 50-250 employees:
1. Lutz & Company, PC
2. Home Instead Senior Care
3. Olsson Associates
4. SilverStone Group
5. MSI Systems Integrators

Winning companies with 250+ employees:
1. Quality Living, Inc.
2. PayPal, an eBay company
3. Farm Credit Services of America
4. Marriott Global Reservation Sales and Customer Care
5. FirstComp

Quality Living Inc - a rehab based business - has been #1 three years running now, so it is possible to earn a spot on the list multiple times. I guess the difference between a company like Quality Living Inc and Netshops boils down to consistency.

Netshops meetings

I remember sitting in meetings like these.

Resources for employees laid off by Netshops

Here are a few resources:

Fired-layed off-downsized employees handbook

Gifts for laid off employees

Oh look. Dilios has been updating Netshops' Wiki entry... I wonder how long it will be before it gets changed back to accurately reflecting the 'multiple rounds of layoffs' Netshops has gone through...

Corporate accounting scandals

Why would ^ that be here....

Unemployed, underemployed or anxiously employed? Take a look at UnitedProfessionals.org

Oh, by the way, the job fair next week at the Holiday Inn Central - it is mostly for journalisim/news media professionals. The next job fair for the rest of us unemployed (or underemployed or anxiously employed - like most of Netshops workforce right now) is April 10th. Circle the date. Like I mentioned - some of you owe me drinks and I don't drink cheap liquor.

Response to Dilios's comments

I was going to respond as a comment, but thought that there was enough in the response that was better in the main section of the blog, instead of being buried in the comments.

Dilios: I never tried to come off as 'objective' - not sure where you got that idea. I've got an issue with the way Netshops does business. I have issues with the way they treat their customers and the way they treat their employees. Shocking? Probably not. Would I have a different perspective if I'd survived this round of layoffs? Maybe. Maybe not. I know I'd have been asking - as I did after the last round of layoffs - if this was the end of the reorgs and job cuts. I wouldn't expect to get a response. I didn't last time - why would this time be any different?

Back then, I was simply a concerned Netshopper. This time, I've been laid off by Netshops. Drastically different situations, different response.

I eagerly await the results of the Omaha Chamber of Commerce's 'Best Places to Work' survey this year. Is Netshops on the list? Maybe they should open the survey up to employees laid off both from Omaha and those being let go from Duluth? How would they fair then? Makes you go Hmmm....

If I was 'layed-off' and not really fired??? Maybe you missed the entry about how prior to being laid off, I was an 'above average' employee - according to each review I'd gotten. (Yes, before you ask, I had more than one. I had to ask, prod and pry my managers to get them completed, but I got them. That's more than I can say for some folks employed by Netshops.)

Who said I was trying to 'stop' anything? If someone looking at Netshops as a potential employer sees this blog and reconsiders their application, or if one potential affilliate pulls their ads OR if one investor decides not to go forward with Netshops, then I've accomplished something. Can you say the same thing about your daily activites? How will your opinion change when you're let go without notice or reason? (Don't think it can't happen - anyone there is fair game.)

Yes, layoffs hapen. Generally they are a sign of a company that is either struggling to stay afloat or a company that's trying to look more profitable than they really are.

Look at it this way - let's say 1st quarter 2007 profits were down. Sequoia (or any other investors for that matter) isn't happy. Call center supervisors were being paid somewhere around $30,000 per year. Let's use that as our median salary - some folks laid off made more, some probably made less. $30k/12 (months) = $2500/month, yes? Ok. 1.5 months into the year, they've paid out approx $3750 per employee. 60+ employees were laid off. Those 60 employees would have cost Doug & Co $1,800,000 in salary. Since they were laid off and some received severance pay,we'll say 60 x $3750 = approx $225,000 in salary paid out. That's a savings of $1,575,000 - quick and easy profit. Who's going to make up the difference & do the added work of those 60+ employees? You are Dilios. You and those employees still there, getting a good laugh at this blog. Although, none of you are any more productive than those who were laid off, since you're spending HOURS each day reading this, rather than doing your job....

Ironic, isn't it?

Blogging and your rights

A couple of people have emailed me with concerns about what Netshops will do with their comments on this blog.

The statements made on this blog are covered under free speech protection. Defimation/libel requires a false and unprivileged statement of fact that is harmful to someone's reputation, and published "with fault," meaning as a result of negligence or malice. Libel is a written defamation; slander is a spoken defamation.

Apparently Doug isn't happy about this blog. Sorry. I'm not happy about being out of work. Cause & effect.

Question and answer time kids. Just let me get my sweater from the closet...
What are the elements of a defamation claim?
The elements that must be proved to establish defamation are:
a publication to one other than the person defamed;
a false statement of fact;
that is understood as
a. being of and concerning the plaintiff; and
b. tending to harm the reputation of plaintiff.
If the plaintiff is a public figure, he or she must also prove actual malice.

Is truth a defense to defamation claims?
Yes. Truth is an absolute defense to a defamation claim. But keep in mind that the truth may be difficult and expensive to prove.

Can my opinion be defamatory?
No — but merely labeling a statement as your "opinion" does not make it so. Courts look at whether a reasonable reader or listener could understand the statement as asserting a statement of verifiable fact. (A verifiable fact is one capable of being proven true or false.) This is determined in light of the context of the statement. A few courts have said that statements made in the context of an Internet bulletin board or chat room are highly likely to be opinions or hyperbole, but they do look at the remark in context to see if it's likely to be seen as a true, even if controversial, opinion ("I really hate George Lucas' new movie") rather than an assertion of fact dressed up as an opinion ("It's my opinion that Trinity is the hacker who broke into the IRS database").

What is a statement of verifiable fact?
A statement of verifiable fact is a statement that conveys a provably false factual assertion, such as someone has committed murder or has cheated on his spouse. To illustrate this point, consider the following excerpt from a court (Vogel v. Felice) considering the alleged defamatory statement that plaintiffs were the top-ranking 'Dumb Asses' on defendant's list of "Top Ten Dumb Asses":

A statement that the plaintiff is a "Dumb Ass," even first among "Dumb Asses," communicates no factual proposition susceptible of proof or refutation. It is true that "dumb" by itself can convey the relatively concrete meaning "lacking in intelligence." Even so, depending on context, it may convey a lack less of objectively assayable mental function than of such imponderable and debatable virtues as judgment or wisdom. Here defendant did not use "dumb" in isolation, but as part of the idiomatic phrase, "dumb ass." When applied to a whole human being, the term "ass" is a general expression of contempt essentially devoid of factual content. Adding the word "dumb" merely converts "contemptible person" to "contemptible fool." Plaintiffs were justifiably insulted by this epithet, but they failed entirely to show how it could be found to convey a provable factual proposition. ... If the meaning conveyed cannot by its nature be proved false, it cannot support a libel claim.

This California case also rejected a claim that the defendant linked the plaintiffs' names to certain web addresses with objectionable addresses (i.e. www.satan.com), noting "merely linking a plaintiff's name to the word "satan" conveys nothing more than the author's opinion that there is something devilish or evil about the plaintiff."

Is there a difference between reporting on public and private figures?
Yes. A private figure claiming defamation — your neighbor, your roommate, the guy who walks his dog by your favorite coffee shop — only has to prove you acted negligently, which is to say that a "reasonable person" would not have published the defamatory statement.

A public figure must show "actual malice" — that you published with either knowledge of falsity or in reckless disregard for the truth. This is a difficult standard for a plaintiff to meet.

Who is a public figure?
A public figure is someone who has actively sought, in a given matter of public interest, to influence the resolution of the matter. In addition to the obvious public figures — a government employee, a senator, a presidential candidate — someone may be a limited-purpose public figure. A limited-purpose public figure is one who (a) voluntarily participates in a discussion about a public controversy, and (b) has access to the media to get his or her own view across. One can also be an involuntary limited-purpose public figure — for example, an air traffic controller on duty at time of fatal crash was held to be an involuntary, limited-purpose public figure, due to his role in a major public occurrence.

Examples of public figures:
A former city attorney and an attorney for a corporation organized to recall members of city counsel
A psychologist who conducted "nude marathon" group therapy
A land developer seeking public approval for housing near a toxic chemical plant
Members of an activist group who spoke with reporters at public events

Have I been laid off? Yes = truth = protected free speech. Also, since Doug is going to be a speaker at the upcoming Internet Retailers conference (How many people from Netshops are going to that conference?) and he's been the figure head in every article I've ever read about the company, I'd have a strong case that he is setting himself out as a public figure, much like (while not on the same level) Steve Jobs, Warren Buffet, Willie Thiesen or Bill Gates.

Also consider my terms of use/privacy policy and my important legal disclaimer. Doug and Netshops are welcome to use this blog to take me to court, but they'd need to be ok with paying that million dollars to use it. What, didn't they bother to read the whole terms of use statement? Guess they know how customers feel when they find out about 50% restocking fees on items purchased at Netshops stores...

Netshops assigned parking spots are coming soon!

Who gets the parking spot this week?

Hodgepodge of Netshops layoff related info today

A little fun for all you Netshoppers reading right now, because I know you aren't doing anything job related....

Take this quiz

Duluth News Tribune picks up on the impending layoffs.

Thralow employees offered jobs in Omaha
Jane Brissett Duluth News TribunePublished Friday, March 16, 2007

NetShops, the Omaha, Neb., company that that bought Web sites from Proctor-based Thralow Inc., has begun offering jobs in Omaha to employees of the local e-commerce firm. Those who aren’t hired will be given a severance package, said NetShops’ human resources director.

All operations from Proctor are moving to Omaha, said Dana Coonce, human
resources director at NetShops. Dan Thralow, who founded Thralow Inc. and now
works for NetShops, said that 35 of the 39 employees who work in Proctor elected
to go to Omaha at NetShops’ expense to see the headquarters and learn about the
company.

NetShops is just beginning to assess how many people it needs and to make offers to workers in Proctor, Coonce said. If Proctor employees aren’t hired to work in Omaha and aren’t retained by Thralow Inc., they will be cut from the payroll and given a severance package, she said. NetShops, which has more than $100 million in annual sales, bought 40 of Thralow Inc.’s Web sites — but not the company itself — in November. The sites include Binoculars.com, Telescopes.com, Peepers
.com and others.

Thralow said the company named for him will remain in Proctor at 9803 Westgate Boulevard in the JOBZ tax-free zone where the company’s warehouse building was recently completed. Thralow said he “can’t answer” what Thralow Inc. will do or how many people it will employ. “There will be a payroll,” he said.

Thralow said he has no plans to move to Omaha.

When the sale was announced, NetShops said it would keep all of Thralow Inc.’s employees. NetShops is a private firm that owned about 120 retail specialty sites — such as PatioUmbrellas.com, Hammocks.com and Dartboards.com — at the time of the acquisition. It was named Inc. magazine’s 13th fastest-growing company in America in 2006.

Thralow Inc. started as a retail outlet called Peepers in downtown Duluth’s Holiday Center. The company began selling sunglasses online in 1996 at Peepers.com and expanded to binoculars and other optical products with various Web sites. Thralow sold the business to Eye City Inc. in 1999, then bought it back at a fraction of the
original sale price when EyeCity folded in 2001. Thralow Inc. was named the
203rd fastest-growing company in America in 2006 by Inc. magazine.

The Omaha World Herald reported on Feb. 7 that NetShops laid off about 50 people to achieve efficiencies and didn’t plan more cuts. Coonce said that was due to a
reorganization unrelated to the current transition.

The integration of the Proctor and Omaha work forces probably will take several months, she said.

Read the comments on the article here.

On a positive note, Laura Erickson's new blog appears to have been pulled. Maybe she's getting Birderblog.com back? Right now, Birderblog.com goes to Binoculars.com, so I have to assume something's going on with the two sites. Laura, if you can, please give us details.

Another person not happy with how they were treated by Netshops.

Amanda Collier's blog

As always, feel free to email me or post a comment.

Netshops has been banned from Wikipedia

A bit about Wikipedia. Wikipedia is literally an open book. It can be written and edited by anyone on the internet. It can be a great resource for information but ONLY if everyone using it is being honest and abides by Wikipedia's policies. If individuals (or companies in this case) are only using Wiki to further their own agenda, Wikipedia becomes less of a valid resource.

Back to Netshops being banned from Wiki. This isn't news for any of the older employees. That bit of information made the rounds about the office back in late September/early October '06. Apparently they had been banned for spam linking - linking articles to Netshops sites to try and increase their own organic search rankings via external links.

I've been looking for proof of this since I was laid off. Its one thing to hear about it at work through the grapevine - quite another to write about it on a blog about Netshops and their questionable ethics.

Luckily, one of my readers did the legwork for me. Thank you!

A bit of info and then the screen caps. Netshops main IP address is 66.37.239.14 - anyone with a halfway decent hit counter on their web page can figure this info out.

Here are a couple of screen captures of Netshops' activities on Wiki



Wiki Netshops user talk



Netshops Spam

And here is a list of all the changes made by Netshops to various articles on Wikipedia. Notice a pattern?

Unfortunately, the ban was for a 6 month period and Netshops will soon be able to edit posts on Wikipedia again. (Well, from the company IP that is. They've been editing it even over the past 6 months, but it has been from employee's homes or other networks.) I wonder how quickly they'll go back to their old tricks?

Karma's a bitch.

Piss one person off and they'll tell 10 of their friends. Piss two off and they'll tell 20 people, those 20 will tell another 5 - 7, those 5 - 7 will tell 3 -4, and soon, hundreds will know about problems within a company.

I wonder how many more people we'll see start to speak out about Netshops and Thralow now....

Just read the blog after the jump

Laura, good luck in your fight. Go get 'em.

Funny - I don't remember hearing anyone say the 60+ people laid off by Netshops were 'not growing with the company'. Is that what Doug and Co said to the Thralow reps when asked about the layoffs? If so, I've got performance reviews to prove otherwise. Heck, I've even got year to date store performance reports from some of my stores. If I wasn't 'growing with the company' I wonder why my stores were all profitable.

Makes you go "Hmm..."

One last thought for the day. Duluth is about 2.5 hour's drive from Mall of America - the biggest mall in the United States, not to mention these other attractions. Knowing that, why would Netshops take the Thralow reps to area malls (and Chuck E Cheese - mustn't forget Chuck E Cheese) as a selling point of moving here? Talk about not understanding the people you're selling to. Could be an indication of how well the current Netshops staff will understand Thralow's group of sites...

As always, I look forward to your emails and comments!

Decision day and my reply to "D"

How many Thralow reps decided to make the move? Is it really 3 of 50 like I've been hearing?

For those of you electing to be laid off, here is information on how to file for unemployment benefits.

Now, onto D's posts.

D said

Communication definitely broke down with the old org chart. Since the
layoffs and the revised org chart, the structure makes a lot more sense, in my
humble opinion. Also, depts are now being tasked with creating SOP (standard
operating procedures) which is par for the course with most companies of this
size. The SOPs are going to specifically address accountability and provide
training material. We are long overdue for them.

The old (August 06 - Feb 07) 'stage' org chart was similar to the store management way of doing things. That 'style' of management worked well in stage 1 & 2. Stages 3 & 4 seemed to lose something - in my opinion it was because of a reduced # of staff in each area working on the sites.

SOP's should have been something done over a year ago when the operations team was in place. Accountability and real, definable measurements of job performance was something that should have been handled by that team as well. (Maybe then we wouldn't have the fraternization issues we have now. Is Paulette going to KC on a shoe run again anytime soon? How many days off did she take unpaid last year? Did all the employees get treated the same way or was she given special treatment?) Yes, Netshops is a 'growing' (or is that immature?) company and 'these things take time to develop' - sort of like the supplier score cards. When I was there, I didn't find a single one that had been completed. I hope Doug hasn't been led to believe that they were....

Maybe if someone was actually accountable for getting these projects done, Netshops wouldn't have needed to lay off 60+ employees in February. Those employees would have moved out of the company on their own based on clearly defined criteria based on their jobs, instead of just a (seemingly) random bloody swath being cut through the work force.

D also said (about the layoffs)

I went directly to the exec in charge of my department and asked for an
explanation. And I got one.
NetShops is not a failing business nor is it run
solely by Doug. Doug is a visionary leader who often asks for the seemingly
impossible while the other two's pragmatism provides the balance. NetShops also
has a unique business model - only our copycats like CSN come close - and we're
still trying to figure out how to make it run like a well-oiled machine. Growing
pains with such rapid expansion were inevitable. At one time only human bodies
could get the job done but now with so many technological advances being made
internally, humans are being replaced by computer applications. Do you think it
was a coincidence that the first layoff occured immediately after Site Manager
was rolled out? You may recall a chunk of merchandisers were let go or
repositioned.

Very interesting thoughts D. "Growing pains with such rapid expansion were inevitable." Sure. I can appreciate that. However having fewer people to do the same amount of work is insanity. Having fewer people to do more work (if Netshops rolls out another 50 - 60 sites again this year) is just plain stupid. Now, Netshops has applied for some tax breaks, namely the Nebraska Advantage Act. As you can see from the article, Netshops indicated they are going to invest 9.2 million and create 440 new jobs. So, if "growing pains with rapid expansion" really was inevitable and those laid off were being replaced due to technological gains, such as the use of Site Manager, why would Netshops need an additional 440 employees? Again, this strikes me as an easy way to look profitable for the investors. It is corporate churn and an example of how little the employees doing the job day to day are really valued by Doug and Co.

NetShops is getting itself ready to go to the next level. Much like when you
negotiate a mortgage with a banker they talk accounting ratios to get an
approved loan amount. The same is happening to NetShops - we had ratios that
made us unattractive to investors and they needed to be fixed. You can bitch and
moan all you want, but these rules are applied to any business with the goals
NetShops has. Doug telling potential investors that he couldn't let go of
employees because they're good loyal workers would have meant proverbial doors
slammed in our faces and the inevitable tanking of NetShops as a whole.

Again, "ratios that made us unattractive to investors" does not make sense when Doug is applying for tax breaks and claiming he's going to add 440 new jobs. If the ratio was wrong in the first place, why would he need to hire new people? I don't know about you but when I bought my house, the bank didn't tell me I had too many children and I'd need to let some of them go.

Once you go "corporate", there's no going back and the Dougs of the world don't
make all the rules anymore.

That's true. Why do you think Netshops isn't as fun as it used to be anymore? Why did a special 'activity committee' need to be created? Where are the patio umbrellas on the call center side? Where are the hammocks/daybeds and adriondack chairs where people can meet and exchange ideas? Those have been traded for more traditional conference rooms to look more 'corporate'. I guess that's what we need to do when the Buffetts and Blumkins of the world come to tour the office.

I once worked at a plant that was profitable for 33 years straight with no
layoffs. And what happened? The plant was shut down for the better of the entire
company. Fair? Nope. Look at the Big 3 and their job security policies - all
three are so far in the red they may never recover.

By 'big 3' do you mean Doug, Julie and Mark? If you think they aren't making money in this venture you're crazy. Do you think they're doing this for the fun of it? Also, how do you know they're 'in the red'?

I'm still working at NetShops but I admire the balls it takes to follow through
with a very difficult decision.

A 'difficult decision'? It wasn't a difficult decision - it was a quick fix. If profits were really down, why weren't more of the upper managers let go? Why was it store managers on down? If things weren't working, why are the same people still in place in the upper portions of the company? Tina, Dave, Marina, Dawn, etc are all still in their positions. While the store managers and buyers had input on what happened to the sites, ultimately the responsibility falls on the stage directors. If the 'stage' approach wasn't working, why is the person who thought of it still there? Oh wait - she's an owner. (Not that she's going to be there much longer from what I've heard. Once she leaves for the baby, I've heard rumors that she may not come back...)

A healthy, growing company does not let 60+ people go because of 'technological advances'. Especially not when they're applying for tax breaks and claiming they'll be adding 440 new jobs to the city/state economy. (So, really after Netshops lays off the Thralow reps, that will bring the total laid off to approximately 100 employees let go in 90 days. In reality, they're only creating 340 new jobs, not the 440 as submitted on their application.) Netshops has issues and those issues start at the top and roll down from there. As always, I look forward to your emails and comments.

So, what would you say...ya do here?

I already told you: I deal with the god damn customers so the store managers* don't have to. I have people skills; I am good at dealing with people. Can't you understand that? What the hell is wrong with you people?

* Yeah, I changed it to be more Netshops specific. So what?

I just wish I could have taken a copier with me when I left....

Netshops affiliates have become aware of this blog...

Apparently the Netshops affiliate network has become aware of my blog. If you want to read the thread, do so here.

To those reading from the affiliate forum, no, I'm not Peter Peter. Leader, you make some very valid points - I'll touch on those in a moment.

Layoffs at Netshops?
I just put together two bits of information and got
nervous. A few weeks ago, Spilsbury went bankrupt and left a bunch of affiliates
unpaid in the lurch (http://forum.abestweb.com/showthread.php?t=86242).Now it seems
that Netshops is having layoffs:http://laidoffbynetshops.blogspot.com/2007/02/missed-this-article-in-omaha-world.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NetShopsIs everything OK? Should
affiliates be worried? Is there any information other than what is doubtless the
party line of "Don't worry, everything's fine"?Pete

Nate - your response

NetShops is a very healthy, rapidly growing company. Most people don't know
we recently purchased another company and inherited about 50 employees. Plus,
because we are still a young company (just turned 5) in a rapid-paced market, we
frequently make necessary structural changes. So yes, some employees were
transitioned to new roles within the company and some were let go. But NetShops
is NOT going anywhere but UP, and you needn't worry about not getting your
commission checks!By the by, we were #13 on Inc. 500's list of fastest growing
companies last year, and the company we purchased was #244.

That's great and all, but the layoffs were of existing employees - not those inherited from Thralow. How many of those 50 'inherited' employees are going to make the transition from Duluth to Omaha? Estimates I'm hearing put the number at, oh, about 3. The song and dance Netshops put on - touring the Netshops office, going to the Henry Doroly Zoo, scavenger hunting at Chuck E Cheese pizza, etc - really didn't 'sell' the 'inherited employees' on moving. So, if 3 of the 50 Thralow reps don't move, they'd have to be laid off, so that would put the 90 day layoff total at about 105 employees released in less than a 3 month period. This is not a sign of a 'growing company'.

"Frequent structural changes" = frequent changes in direction, reorgs and layoffs (in layman's terms). It also confirms what I've been saying all along - there is no job security at Netshops, there is no possibility of a long term career path for employees and the only direction Netshops is going is in a balls to the wall, flat out, mad rush to look profitable for investors.

Now, if this were just a blog by one person and I was bitching and moaning about how unfair it was to be laid off, I didn't deserve it, etc, that would be one thing. Unfortunately, for Netshops, this blog has started to take on a life of it's own. People are sending me information on a daily basis - the current reorg, what the Thralow reps feel like (and what they're doing) and questions they'd like me to throw out there - because they don't feel safe in the current environment asking them themselves. It's really too bad.

Don't believe me? Take a look at all the comments posted to the blog. There isn't a single one done by me and that just scratches the surface.

Leader, your comment -

With anything negative you read: You need to pay attention to WHO is talking,
and JUST WHAT their beef is. Then decide if you think the complaint(s) are
reasonable, and if you should consider the complainers to be credible.

These are mostly former employees talking. However, I am getting information from current employees and some of those 'inherited employees' Nate mentioned. (I wonder how the Thralow reps feel about being called 'inherited'?) Nate does need to tow the company line and I understand that. (Glad I didn't have to be in the meeting about this blog...) Sorry about any additional pressure you might find yourself under Nate. You always seemed like a decent guy and I hope I haven't put you in an uncomfortable position.

Employees get disgruntled when something SUCKS! A company shouldn't have
any/many hugely disgruntled employees, and when they do, that in itself is a
sign of a problem.

Employees at Netshops have been disgruntled for a long time now.

After the layoffs in August of 06, people were pretty upset. Some quit as a result, some were put into positions that weren't what they were doing before and they weren't given much time with the Christmas holiday looming to learn their new roles very well. (They weren't given choices in these new roles either by the way - we came into the manager's office and were told, "Here's where you are on the new org chart. Hope you like it." Even more people quit. Those that didn't and weren't happy were made to apply and interview for, essentially their old jobs as the people who quit were replaced. Nice, huh?) By the time October hit, Netshops employees were asked to do extra work - taking calls in the call center, answering customer service emails they weren't trained to handle, and working in the warehouse - usually 50 - 60 hours per week - along with their normal duties. It was called the "Lend a hand" program. Worst. Idea. Ever.

Many of us thought with a profitable holiday (more profitable than any before - up 85% year over year) we'd be safe from a reorg and layoffs. Unfortunately, we weren't able to hit our gross margin or our profit goals. (Is this because of something the employees did/didn't do, or, because of wildly inaccurate & unattainable goals? That's a subject for another blog, another time.)

And the problem's not the employee (assuming that the angry employee is
reasonably sane). The size of the company is important to consider, though; any
big company probably has several employees who hate it and who will usually be
quitting soon anyway, but a small one ( under 50 people ) only needs a couple of
antis to indicate a problem.So the question is "what is it?" What sucks so bad
that someone has been made angry enough to write blogs and wiki entries about
it?! It's a mistake to assume in favor of the company in these cases. Usually
when the employees start to say a place sucks, it's because it does! (Sometimes
it's just some kook or lamer who had unreasonable expectations, but I haven't
seen that too often.) Personally I find it quite relevant , and would like to
know if promoting NetShops means promoting a bad employer. (And I don't see any
keywords on that blog that'd count towards a what I'd consider a G-bomb...it
doesn't seem to have any "choice" words directly linked to NetShops' URL. )

Again, very good points. At one time, Netshops had approximately 440 employees. In less than a year, I'd estimate they're down to about 300-ish based on the people I saw leave between August and February, and the February layoff. Not a 'growing' company in my opinion. Yes, they're adding more stores. Great. Without the staff to handle the stores they have, how are they going to continue to grow? How will they handle customer service issues? (Off on a tangent here, how do customer service issues/failures effect affiliates?)

Something else to think about. Netshops purchased Thralow, like Nate alluded to. Good company, good people, good sites. Binoculars.com, Telescopes.com, Pans.com, OperaGlasses.com, EMetalDetectors.com, Utensils.com, etc, etc. Those sites are drastically different from hammocks, diaper bags, slippers, pajamas, beds, christmas trees, and adirondack chairs. The technical knowledge needed on the Thralow sites is an important part of selling product on those sites. Netshops reps aren't going to have the experience needed to make an educated guess, much less an informed opinion on what a customer should do. How well do you think Netshops is going to do in categories they don't fully understand?

Last thing for tonight.

"D" - since you've asked that I don't repost your comment, I won't, but I do have a reply I'm working on. I'll need to repost some sections of your post, but I won't repost it in full. That's the best I can do.

Eric - yes, I'm still interested in continuing our conversation - I'll email you soon. Sorry for the delay in responding - interviews have been taking up my time these past few days.

What a week so far!

1279 page views since Monday. That's, what? 4 page views for every employee at Netshops?

Now, I know not all of you reading are Netshops employees. Some Thralow reps have been reading and some CSN folks as well. Thanks for checking in - I appreciate the kind words.

For those Netshops employees who are having trouble accessing the blog, sorry. First of all, you really shouldn't be spending work time reading what I'm saying about the company. Secondly, I'm sure being redirected to the Nebraska Workforce website and/or CareerLink will come in handy for some of you down the road. Technology is an amazing thing. See, I could just direct you to a page that says "you are not authorized to view this page" or something along those lines, but I thought this would be more fun. Now, who's up for some porn? :D Just kidding. I wouldn't do that to you....

On to other topics.

I (and others who have contacted me) have looked into the WARN act I mentioned yesterday. The way it sounds, if you've signed your severance agreement, your ability to file a claim is gone unless there's some way to prove it is Netshops' policy to give severance when employees are laid off. It could be done - based on people impacted by both this lay off and the previous lay offs, but it would probably cost more than it would end up being worth. (**Again, I'm not an attorney and I'm not providing you with legal advice - just relating my experiences and those of some others who have contacted me. Get your legal advice from an attorney who is familiar with your individual situation.**)

I wonder how the WARN act will impact the Thralow reps if they decide to stay in Duluth?

To those of you who have been emailing me with info, thank you - as always, I won't reveal any info unless you give me the ok.

To "D" who posted a comment and then decided to remove it - don't worry, I still have a copy of your comment and I'll post my response to a few points soon. You made some very good arguements and I feel the need to present another point of view. Probably won't have time for that until tomorrow though.

For those still unemployed, the next job fair in Omaha will be taking place 3/27/06 at the Holiday Inn on 72nd street. Maybe I'll see some of you there. Some of you owe me drinks.

Did you know...

the federal government considers a 'mass layoff' to be any layoff of 50 employees or more (within a 90 day period)? The recent layoff at Netshops would constitute a 'mass layoff' and Netshops could be required to pay you 60 days wages.

I can hear you thinking "Why?" "How?" "What chu talkin' 'bout Willis??"

Let me explain.

In 1988, Congress passed the WARN act. Warn is an acronym for Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification. This act basically states employers must give employees 60 days notice - in writing - in advance of the proposed layoff.

I know I'm looking into this. I don't know if I have a claim or not, but 60 days pay sure would be nice to have.

You might take a look at this site for assistance.

**Keep in mind - this is not legal advice. I am not an attorney. Consult an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation.**

Hope the meeting with the Thralow reps goes well...

You can do anything you set your mind to when you have vision, determination and an endless supply of expendable labor.

Busy weekend!

LOTS of emails over the weekend! Just want to answer a few questions - both from emails and from comments posted below.

"CrazyMama" said

Just a thought, but maybe if you had put this much time and effort into your job at Netshops, you would still be there. Then again, the largest portion of this blog was coppied from someone else, so maybe that says a lot about your work.

Actually Crazy (I can call you crazy, right? If you are who I think you are, its a fitting name..) this blog has taken all of, 20 minutes to post. That's about the length of one of your 3 smoke breaks per day, isn't it? I never took a break. I was at my desk 9+ hours a day. The only time I was gone was for lunch - and that was usually 30 minutes, not to mention any work I did from home after leaving the office. How's that teaching degree coming?

Then "CrazyMama" said

I couldn't disagree with Leigh more. Many of the efficiencies created by the layoff and the upgrades / changes made to the systems and procedures were to the benefit of the customer. As for loyalty to the employees, Netshops is loyal to those employees who are loyal to Netshops, not those who give 8 hours notice of their departure (and that notice was given only when confronted). Those employees who work hard, help find solutions to the inefficiencies and truly see the future of Netshops are rewarded and valued. Those who show up everyday in their pajamas and slippers only to bitch and moan about what is wrong have/had no loyalty to Netshops, and were probably on the list to go. Of course money and profit are important; this is a business, not a slumber party. It is understandable to see resentment from those let go, but maybe those people should take a hard look at the time they spent with Netshops and the value they actually contributed. This isn't to say that everyone let go was not a good employee. I am sure there were many cases where there was just a need to reshape positions and processes and some positions were no longer necessary. I have no doubt that those people will find great things at another company.

Pretty lengthy way to say what I've already said.... I said (in an earlier post) 'Were some of those individuals let go due to be released based on poor performance? Possibly.' However, I went on to ask, "Were any of them told about their poor performance? Only one that I've heard about - and that was through her comment on this blog. If the employees let go were distracted, unmotivated or just simply in the wrong position, perhaps a solid career path would have helped motivate them." Maybe you missed reading that. Where are you going to be in the company in 6 months? Will you even be with the company in 6 months?

Oh and CrazyMama? Your jealousy of Leigh won't get you very far in life. Just because she had a backbone and stood up for herself when a member of upper management decided to mane an unwarranted negative comment (FYI, Leigh's immediate supervisor heard the comment and failed to do anything about it. Could that be because the two managers are dating? Can you say 'fraternization policy'? I knew you could...) doesn't mean you get to try to talk down to her here. My respect for Leigh jumped about 100 points when she told Netshops she was done. She remained professional - which is more than I've ever seen out of you.


On to other questions.

To "J" who emailed from a far off place, yes, last I heard Paulette is still employed. I guess buying shoes for the call center manager gets you some job security at Netshops. Maybe I should have given her a Coke bottle for Xmas.

Oh well, live and learn.

Lastly, here's a fun message that was sent to me. All of you still employed at Netshops should give this a try at Doug's next all company meeting.

Before (or during) your next meeting, seminar, or conference call,
prepare yourself by drawing a square. I find that 5"x5" is a good size.
Divide the card into columns-five across and five down. That will give
you 25 one-inch blocks.

Write one of the following words/phrases in each block:

* synergy
* strategic fit
* core competencies
* best practice
* bottom line
* revisit
* expeditious
* to tell you the truth (or "the truth is")
* 24/7
* out of the loop
* benchmark
* value-added
* proactive
* win-win
* think outside the box
* fast track
* result-driven
* empower (or empowerment)
* knowledge base
* at the end of the day
* touch base
* mindset
* client focus(ed)
* paradigm
* game plan
* leverage
* scaleable
* on track (or on pace)
** last, but certainly not least, that ol' Netshops stand by, it is what it is

Check off the appropriate block when you hear one of those words or
phrases. When you get five blocks horizontally, vertically, or diagonally,
stand up and shout "BULLSHIT!"

That's all for now. I've got some jobs to apply for. As always, I look forward to hearing from you!

Thralow reps being asked to transfer to Omaha?

That's what I've heard from a few sources. Unfortunately the people that were on their way to check out Netshops Central were stranded by the blizzard. Perhaps as many as 20 people stranded on their way here to Omaha is what I'm hearing. My advice? Stay warm and wait it out.

***Update*** I've been told from another source that there are not 20 people on their way to check out Netshops Central. (I'm not there, so all I can go by is what info is given to me. If they are or aren't on their way to Omaha to check out the 'home office', either way my advice to wait it out and stay warm remains the same.

There are people who are considering the transfer however, so the information below remains the same. I've been told those individuals need additional information to properly decide if they want to make the move. Email me or post a comment with what info you need and I'll do what I can to get it for you. ***End of update***

As far as transferring to Netshops Central, good luck to the people up north. I hope they go into this decision with their eyes wide open about how things are done at Netshops. (Keep your resume up to date gang, because if you think you're anything more than an employee number, you're dead wrong.)

Now, keep in mind, you're going to have to move all your stuff from Duluth to Omaha. That's approximately 380 miles. I've done some checking (since I have nothing better to do with my time now that I'm unemployed) and an approximate cost to move from Duluth to Omaha is $3072.00. That's if you pack and load everything by yourself. If you have someone do it for you, the cost jumps to between $3792 - $4032. If you want someone to unpack your stuff for you, the cost jumps again to $4032 - $4392. Not a small cost to incur especially if you aren't guaranteed to be employed long enough to recoup that cost.

Who knows? Maybe Netshops can have your stuff shipped via Home Direct.

Churn and what it means

In the business world, hiring people while laying off others is called churn.

As I pointed out in an earlier post, Netshops laid off 60+ employees 2/1/07. This was done because they've "gained some efficiencies" according to Doug Nielsen (per the Omaha World Herald article).

If they've "gained some efficiencies" then why are they hiring more folks?

"Churn" (also known as "attrition") is a term used commonly to mean all kinds of departures from companies, including voluntary resignations and those fired as well as those laid off. Looking at the intentional churn created solely by layoffs gives insight into how much companies are controlling how their workforce changes. - Mercury News 12/21/2006

Was this layoff a tactic to appear more profitable? If so, maybe upper management doesn't fully understand the cost of an employee. Were some of those individuals let go due to be released based on poor performance? Possibly. Were any of them told about their poor performance? Only one that I've heard about - and that was through her comment on this blog. If the employees let go were distracted, unmotivated or just simply in the wrong position, perhaps a solid career path would have helped motivate them. (At least, that's what an article from Inc.com suggests. What would they know? They only put out the annual list of the 500 fastest growing US companies.) With as many reorgs as I was part of in the time I was there, it was tough to figure out what my current responsiblities were, much less where I was headed six months down the road. I can't imagine I as the only one who felt that way, but maybe I was. Despite this, I think I was still motivated to do a good job every day - staying late, taking on extra responsibilities and in general trying to go above and beyond what my job description called for. Maybe this wasn't the case? Who knows - I certainly wasn't told about any areas I was lacking in. Based on my most recent review, I was an 'above average' employee. (I was above average on my previous reviews as well.) Too bad that doesn't equate to job security these days.

As always, feel free to email me or post your comments. I look forward to hearing from you!

Important Legal Disclaimer

Since I've been told many of those still employed by Netshops are aware of my blog, I probably should make you aware of this legal disclaimer. (Although, I must admit, I didn't come up with it - it is largely copied from Dr Peter Rost's blog.)

Important Legal Disclaimer

This blog is designed to be provocative, confrontational, irreverent, mocking, impertinent, flippant, impudent, bold, enlightening, naughty, mischievous, funny and tongue-in-cheek. If you have no humor or if you are a boring person you are not supposed to read this blog. If you read it anyway you do so at your own peril, but please do not use the reply function because then we'll all get bored.Please do use the reply function when this blog makes you really, really mad or happy. Those are the uninhibited comments we love and you'll regret the next day.If you are a lawyer and read this you can never use this blog in a court of law, since it does not always contain a full statement of facts, or even facts, but you can use it to entertain your fellow lawyers. And if you are an entertainment lawyer, feel free to call me because I need a gig or a speaking engagement.You can expect to encounter generalizations, simplifications, hypothecations, exaggerations, inflations, fabrications, but mostly a lot of truths no one ever had the guts to tell you before. (The last part I wrote, my lawyer made me put in those other words.)
These are my opinions only, and most statements have been carefully researched, but that doesn't mean you will receive a fair and balanced picture of any issue. If you did, this blog would turn into a boring legal paper.And by the way, I'm not engaged in rendering medical, legal, business, or other professional services. At the moment, I'm not engaged in anything, since I'm unemployed. I'm a former Netshops employee, expressing my understanding of life, business, legal, and other matters and I make no representation or warranty, express or implied, with respect to the sufficiency, accuracy, or utility of any information contained in this blog.In short, if you need a life or other expert assistance, the services of a competent priest/rabbi/imam/shaman/accountant/doctor/shrink/lawyer or whatever you are into should be sought.And if you need a life, perhaps that's no ones fault but your own. So stop whining. We all know that life is tough and then you die. That was a fabrication. I didn't really mean that, because I do know that some people need compassion. My wife tells me she needs more of that, so I'm sure there are others just like her. Boy -- am I lucky that she still puts up with me.And I promise to be very serious sometimes and irreverent other times. It just depends on the mood I'm in. And I really like big companies, CEOs, politicians, doctors, lawyers, firemen and fuzzy animals, in spite of my comments. I also like trolls. They can be warm and cuddly. I have lots of friends who are all those things -- unless they stopped being friends after reading my musings.This disclaimer may be updated anytime and is presumed to part of any past or future postings. If you didn't find it it's your own fault.
This blog may contain copyrighted ((c)) material. The fair use of a copyrighted work, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. This constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C., § 107 of the US Copyright Law. This material is distributed for nonprofit educational purposes. If you are the copyright owner and you disagree with my use of your copyrighted material, please let me know and I will replace such material with a note saying that you are a censor, book burner and evil person.

TERMS OF USE AGREEMENT AND PRIVACY POLICY

My terms of use agreement and privacy policy goes hand in hand with the important legal disclaimer posted earlier today. (Again, I must admit, I didn't come up with it - it is largely copied from Dr Peter Rost's blog.)

Yes, its long. No, you don't have to read it. But you should. Even if only for the references to Dilly Bars.

TERMS OF USE AGREEMENT AND PRIVACY POLICY
Use of this site is governed by our Terms of Use Agreement and Privacy Policy.TERMS OF USE AGREEMENTWelcome to this Web site. By using this site, you are agreeing to comply with and be bound by the following terms of use. PLEASE REVIEW THE FOLLOWING TERMS CAREFULLY, BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME NASTY SURPRISES. If you do not agree to these terms, you should not use this site. Just go away and don’t come back. The term "Laid_Off_By_Netshops," "us," "we" or "our" refers to the author of this blog. The term "you" refers to you, the user or viewer of my blog.Acceptance of Agreement.You agree to the terms and conditions set forth in this Terms of Use Agreement ("Agreement") with respect to our site (the "Site"). This Agreement constitutes the entire and only agreement between us and you and also incorporates the separate, very humorous legal disclaimer by reference which can be found here: http://laidoffbynetshops.blogspot.com/2007/03/important-legal-disclaimer.html. This agreement supersedes all prior or contemporaneous agreements, representations, warranties and understandings with respect to the Site and the subject matter of this Agreement. This Agreement may be amended at any time by us from time to time without specific notice to you and is effective retroactively from the beginning of time, when God created Earth. The latest version of the Agreement will be posted on this Site, and you should review this Agreement prior to using the Site. If you don’t, you are a lazy bastard and you can’t complain.Copyright.The content, organization, graphics, design, compilation, magnetic translation, digital conversion and other matters related to the Site are protected under applicable copyrights, trademarks and other proprietary (including but not limited to intellectual property) rights. The copying, redistribution, use or publication by you of any such matters or any part of the Site, except as allowed by "Limited License," below, is strictly prohibited. If you do so without a license, you hereby agree to pay us a one time fee of $1,000,000 ($1 Million), payable within ten days. You do not acquire ownership rights to any article, document or other materials viewed through the Site. The posting of information or materials on the Site does not constitute a waiver of any right in such information and materials. Some of the content on the Site may be the copyrighted work of third parties.Limited License; Permitted Uses.You are granted a non-exclusive, non-transferable, revocable license (a) to access and use the Site solely in accordance with this Agreement; (b) to use the Site solely for internal, personal, non-commercial and non-legal purposes; and (c) to print out or save on your computer discrete information from this Site solely for internal, personal, non-commercial and non-legal purposes provided that you maintain all copyright and other policies contained therein; and (d) to use part or entire posts from this Site on your Site, provided you include a link back to the original post. No print out or electronic version of any part of the Site or its contents may be used by you in any litigation or arbitration matter whatsoever under any circumstances. If you violate this provision, i.e., you print out a post and later use this in Court or for any legal purposes whatsoever, you hereby agree to pay us a one time fee of $1,000,000 ($1 Million). If the firm you work for refuses to pay, you will be personally liable for this amount. You don’t like it? Fine, don’t come here and abuse the content of this blog.Restrictions and Prohibitions on Use.Your license for access and use of the Site and any information, materials or documents (collectively defined as "Content and Materials") therein are subject to the following restrictions and prohibitions on use: You may not (a) copy, print, save (except for the express limited purpose permitted above), republish, display, distribute, transmit, sell, rent, lease, loan or otherwise make available in any form or by any means all or any portion of the Site or any Content and Materials retrieved therefrom; (b) use the Site or any materials obtained from the Site to develop, of as a component of, any information, storage and retrieval system, database, information base, or similar resource (in any media now existing or hereafter developed), that is offered for commercial distribution of any kind, including through sale, license, lease, rental, subscription, or any other commercial distribution mechanism; (c) create compilations or derivative works of any Content and Materials from the Site except as described above; (d) use any Content and Materials from the Site in any manner that may infringe any copyright, intellectual property right, proprietary right, or property right of us or any third parties; (e) remove, change or obscure any copyright notice or other proprietary notice or terms of use contained in the Site; (f) make any portion of the Site available through any timesharing system, service bureau, the Internet or any other technology now existing or developed in the future; (g) remove, decompile, disassemble or reverse engineer any Site software or use any network monitoring or discovery software to determine the Site architecture; (h) use any automatic or manual process to harvest information from the Site; (i) use the Site for the purpose of gathering information for or transmitting (1) unsolicited commercial e-mail; (2) e-mail that makes use of headers, invalid or nonexistent domain names, or other means of deceptive addressing; and (3) unsolicited telephone calls or facsimile transmissions; (j) use the Site in a manner that violates any state or federal law regulating e-mail, facsimile transmissions or telephone solicitations; and (k) export or re-export the Site or any portion thereof, or any software available on or through the Site, in violation of the export control laws or regulations of the United States.No Legal Advice.Information contained on or made available through the Site is not intended to and does not constitute legal advice, recommendations, mediation or counseling under any circumstance. The author of this blog is not a lawyer. We do not warrant or guarantee the accurateness, completeness, adequacy or currency of the information contained in or linked to the Site. Your use of information on the Site or materials linked to the Site is entirely at your own risk. You should not act or rely on any information on the Site without seeking the advice of a competent attorney licensed to practice in your jurisdiction for your particular problem. The information contained herein does not necessarily reflect the opinions of the author.Forms, Agreements & DocumentsWe may make available through the Site music files, film files, various documents and legal documents (collectively, "Documents"). All Documents are provided on a non-exclusive license basis only for your personal one-time use for non-commercial purposes, without any right to re-license, sublicense, distribute, assign or transfer such license. Documents are provided without any representations or warranties, express or implied, as to their suitability, legal effect, completeness, currentness (is that a real word?), accuracy, and/or appropriateness. THE DOCUMENTS ARE PROVIDED "AS IS", "AS AVAILABLE", AND WITH "ALL FAULTS", AND WE AND ANY PROVIDER OF THE DOCUMENTS DISCLAIM ANY WARRANTIES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. The Documents may be inappropriate for your particular circumstances. Furthermore, state laws may require different or additional provisions to ensure the desired result. You should consult with legal counsel to determine the appropriate legal or business documents necessary for your particular transactions, as the Documents may be fake, irrelevant, or downright stupid, and may not be applicable to a particular situation.Linking to the Site.You may provide links to the Site, provided (a) that you do not remove or obscure, by framing or otherwise, the copyright notice or other notices on the Site, (b) your site does not engage in illegal or pornographic activities, (you may show lightly dressed pretty women in non pornographic poses, a policy which we will interpret broadly) and (c) you discontinue providing links to the Site immediately upon request by us.You may send us e-mail. However, you should not send us confidential or sensitive information via e-mail because your communication will not be treated as privileged or confidential and it may be published on this site. You should also note that the security of Internet e-mail is uncertain. By sending sensitive or confidential e-mail messages which are not encrypted, you accept the risks of such uncertainty and possible lack of confidentiality over the Internet.Errors, Corrections and Changes.We do not represent or warrant that the Site will be error-free, free of viruses or other harmful components, or that defects will be corrected. If we can find a cookie which takes a picture of you looking at your screen, we reserve the right to use that cookie. Or eat it. We do not represent or warrant that the information available on or through the Site will be correct, accurate, timely or otherwise reliable. The law is constantly changing and the information may not be complete or accurate. And we don’t know the law because we are not lawyers. Each legal issue depends on its individual facts and different jurisdictions have different laws and regulations. The author is not a lawyer (did we say that already?) and sometimes has no idea what he is talking about, other times he knows very well. That's for you to figure out and you use this site at your own risk. We may make changes to the features, functionality or content of the Site at any time. We reserve the right in our sole discretion to edit or delete any documents, information or other content appearing on the Site.Third Party Content.Third party content may appear on the Site or may be accessible via links from the Site. We are not responsible for and assume no liability for any third party content. You understand that the information and opinions in the third party content represent solely the thoughts of someone and is neither endorsed by nor does it necessarily reflect our belief.Unlawful Activity.We reserve the right to investigate complaints or reported violations of this Agreement and to take any action we deem appropriate, including but not limited to reporting any suspected unlawful activity to law enforcement officials, regulators, or other third parties and disclosing any information necessary or appropriate to such persons or entities relating to your profile, e-mail addresses, usage history, IP addresses and traffic information. We reserve the right to do everything legally permissible to find out who you are and publicly welcome you as a reader or mock you if we don't like your visit.Indemnification.You agree to indemnify, defend and hold us and our partners, associates, agents, attorneys, employees, subcontractors, successors, assigns, and affiliates (collectively, "Affiliated Parties") harmless from any liability, loss, claim and expense related to your violation of this Agreement or use of the Site.Disclaimer.THE INFORMATION, CONTENT AND DOCUMENTS FROM OR THROUGH THE SITE ARE PROVIDED "AS-IS," "AS AVAILABLE," WITH "ALL FAULTS", AND ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, ARE DISCLAIMED (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE DISCLAIMER OF ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE). THE INFORMATION AND SITE MAY CONTAIN BUGS, ERRORS, PROBLEMS OR OTHER LIMITATIONS. IT MAY EVEN MAKE YOUR COMPUER EXPLODE, BUT WE DON’T THINK IT WILL. WE AND OUR AFFILIATED PARTIES HAVE NO LIABILITY WHATSOEVER, EXCEPT AS PROVIDED in one of the sections above, we don't remember which one. IN PARTICULAR, BUT NOT AS A LIMITATION THEREOF, WE AND OUR AFFILIATED PARTIES ARE NOT LIABLE FOR ANY INDIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF BUSINESS, LOSS OF PROFITS, LITIGATION, OR THE LIKE), WHETHER BASED ON BREACH OF CONTRACT, BREACH OF WARRANTY, TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE), PRODUCT LIABILITY OR OTHERWISE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. THE NEGATION AND LIMITATION OF DAMAGES SET FORTH ABOVE ARE FUNDAMENTAL ELEMENTS OF THE BASIS OF THE BARGAIN BETWEEN US AND YOU. THIS SITE AND THE INFORMATION PRESENTED WOULD NOT BE PROVIDED WITHOUT SUCH LIMITATIONS. NO ADVICE OR INFORMATION, WHETHER ORAL OR WRITTEN, OBTAINED BY YOU FROM US THROUGH THE SITE OR OTHERWISE SHALL CREATE ANY WARRANTY, REPRESENTATION OR GUARANTEE NOT EXPRESSLY STATED IN THIS AGREEMENT.ALL RESPONSIBILITY OR LIABILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES CAUSED BY VIRUSES CONTAINED WITHIN THE ELECTRONIC FILE CONTAINING A FORM OR DOCUMENT IS DISCLAIMED.Limitation of Liability(a) We and any Affiliated Party shall not be liable for any loss, injury, claim, liability, or damage of any kind resulting in any way from (i) any errors in or omissions from the Site or information obtained, (ii) the unavailability or interruption of the Site or any features thereof, (iii) your use of the Site, (iv) the content contained on the Site, or (v) any delay or failure in performance beyond the control of an Affiliated Party.(b) THE AGGREGATE LIABILITY OF US AND THE AFFILIATED PARTIES IN CONNECTION WITH ANY CLAIM ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO THE SITE SHALL NOT EXCEED $10 AND THAT AMOUNT SHALL BE IN LIEU OF ALL OTHER REMEDIES WHICH YOU MAY HAVE AGAINST US AND ANY AFFILIATED PARTY. IF YOU DON’T LIKE THIS, DON’T COME HERE AND DON’T EMAIL US! IT’S ALL VERY SIMPLE.Use of Information/Privacy Policy.We reserve the right, and you authorize us, to the use and assignment of all information regarding Site uses by you and all information provided by you in any manner consistent with our Privacy Policy. Our Privacy Policy, as it may change from time to time, is a part of this Agreement. You may review this Privacy Policy below.Links to other Web Sites.The Site contains links to other Web sites. We are not responsible for the content, accuracy or opinions express in such Web sites, and such Web sites are not investigated, monitored or checked for accuracy or completeness by us. But they are probably really hot web sites and we recommend reading them. Inclusion of any linked Web site on our Site does not imply approval or endorsement of the linked Web site by us. If you decide to leave our Site and access these third-party sites, you do so at your own risk. If your computer explodes, please sue the battery manufacturer and not us.Copyrights and Copyright Agents.We respect the intellectual property of others, and we ask you to do the same. If you believe that your work has been copied in a way that constitutes copyright infringement, please provide us with the following information:a. An electronic or physical signature of the person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of the copyright interest;b. A description of the copyrighted work that you claim has been infringed;c. A description of where the material that you claim is infringing is located on the Site;d. Your address, telephone number, and e-mail address;e. A statement by you that you have a good faith belief that the disputed use is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law; andf. A statement by you, made under penalty of perjury, that the above information in your Notice is accurate and that you are the copyright owner or authorized to act on the copyright owner’s behalf.g. Scan all this information into a pdf document and email this to laid_off_by_netshops (insert @)yahoo.com.Legal Compliance.You agree to comply with all applicable domestic and international laws, statutes, ordinances and regulations regarding your use of the Site and the Content and Materials provided therein.Miscellaneous.This Agreement shall be treated as though it were executed and performed in Nebraska, and shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Nebraska (without regard to conflict of law principles). If you don't like that we can use Sweden instead. But only if we agree to do so. ANY CAUSE OF ACTION BY YOU WITH RESPECT TO THE SITE MUST BE INSTITUTED WITHIN ONE (1) MONTH AFTER THE CAUSE OF ACTION AROSE OR BE FOREVER WAIVED AND BARRED. All actions shall be subject to the limitations set forth above. The language in this Agreement shall be interpreted as to its fair meaning and not strictly for or against any party. THE FACT THAT WE USE HUMOR IN THIS DOCUMENT SHALL NOT BE HELD AGAINST US AND SHALL NOT DIMINISH THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS DOCUMENT. Any rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not apply in interpreting this Agreement. The headings in this Agreement are included for convenience only and shall neither affect the construction or interpretation of any provision of this Agreement nor affect any of the rights or obligations of the parties to this Agreement. Should any part of this Agreement be held invalid or unenforceable, that portion shall be construed as much as possibly consistent with applicable law and the remaining portions shall remain in full force and effect. So if we don’t get $1,000,000 when you breach this agreement, we expect to receive $999,999, and so on. To the extent that anything in or associated with the Site is in conflict or inconsistent with this Agreement, this Agreement shall take precedence. Our failure to enforce any provision of this Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver of such provision nor of the right to enforce such provision. Our rights under this Agreement shall survive any termination of this Agreement.PRIVACY POLICYThank you for visiting this cool web site. We are pleased to provide you this Privacy Policy to inform you of our practices with respect to the collection and use of information about visitors to our web site. By using this site, you consent to the following terms and our Terms of Use Agreement.What Information Do We Collect?Anything we can. When you visit our web site you may provide us with two types of information: personal information you knowingly choose to disclose that is collected on an individual basis and web site use information collected on an individual and aggregate basis as you and others browse our web site.Personal Information You Choose to ProvideYou may voluntarily provide us personally identifiable information. If you choose to correspond with us through e-mail, we may retain the content of your e-mail messages together with your e-mail address and our responses and we may publish, eat, or create anything we like based on this correspondence.Similar to other web sites, our web site utilizes a standard technology called "cookies" (see explanation below, "What Are Cookies?") and Web server logs to collect information about how our web site is used. Information gathered through cookies and Web server logs may include the date and time of visits, the pages viewed, time spent at our web site, and the web sites visited just before and just after our web site as well as other personal information that happens to get stuck.How Do We Use the Information That You Provide to Us?Broadly speaking, we use personal information for purposes of enhancing or modifying our site, administering and expanding our business activities or responding to inquiries. We also use it for fun, laugh our heads off, and to write posts.What Are Cookies?A cookie is a very small text document, which often includes an anonymous unique identifier. When you visit a web site, that site’s computer asks your computer for permission to store this file in a part of your hard drive specifically designated for cookies. You can disable this function, so if you didn't you have nothing to complain about. But if you do disable this function most web sites you like will not recognize you and you will probably enable the function again, because you are lazy. Each web site can send its own cookie to your browser if your browser’s preferences allow it, but (to protect your privacy) your browser only permits a web site to access the cookies it has already sent to you, not the cookies sent to you by other sites. Cookies are also good to eat. I like them better than Dilly Bars.How Do We Use Information We Collect from Cookies?In short, any way we want. As you use our web site, the site uses its cookies to differentiate you from other users. It can’t take your picture or check your shoe size, but you can assume that one day it will. Cookies, in conjunction with our Web server’s log files, allow us to calculate the aggregate number of people visiting our web site and which parts of the site are most popular. It also helps us identify crazy people who read this blog once every hour. This helps us gather feedback in order to constantly improve our web site. And to spy on the people who spy on us. Cookies do not allow us to gather any personal information about you, which is really sad, and we do not generally store any personal information that you provided to us in your cookies, but we may. Hey, so you never know.Sharing Information with Third PartiesWe generally do not share information collected with third parties but reserve the right to do so. And if someone offers us a gazillion dollars we may cave in and share anything.How Do We Protect Your Information?E-mail is not recognized as a secure medium of communication. You should not send private or confidential information to us by e-mail or otherwise in connection with our site. Anyway, anything you send we may publish or do whatever we want with. Does this mean your email will be posted on this blog? Probably not. Unless it really makes us laugh, ir its about Dilly Bars.Certain DisclosuresWe may disclose your personal information if required to do so by law or subpoena or if we believe that such action is necessary to (a) conform to the law or comply with legal process served on us or parties affiliated with us; (b) protect and defend our rights and property, our Site, the users of our site, and/or our affiliated parties; and/or (c) act under circumstances to protect the safety of users of the site, us, or third parties.What About Other web sites Linked to Our web site?We love 'em. But we are not responsible for the practices employed by web sites linked to or from our web site nor the information or content contained therein. Often links to other web sites are provided solely as pointers to information on topics that may be useful to the users of our web site.Please remember that when you use a link to go from our web site to another web site, our Privacy Policy is no longer in effect. Your browsing and interaction on any other web site, including web sites which have a link on our web site, is subject to that web site’s own rules and policies. Please read over those rules and policies before proceeding.Questions and UpdatesIf you have any questions or suggestions about our privacy practices, or you wish to update or correct any personally identifiable information that you have chosen to provide us, please feel free to contact us at our email, which you will find somewhere on this blog.Your ConsentBy using our web site you consent to our collection and use of your personal information as described in this Privacy Policy. If you don't simply don't come back. That wasn't hard, was it? If we change our privacy policies and procedures, we will post those changes on our web site to keep you aware of what information we collect, how we use it and under what circumstances we may disclose it. Or maybe we will not, if we forget. But we will try.