[garylmoore78]

First off, I must say how sad I am to think that we even have to entertain this type of idea... Looking over the landscape of our "smaller" branches I see many of us that are now in groups of 1-5 employees at our once very proud branches. The $2000.00 sb's buy in for a branch job seems to be something has limited the growth and participation of all of the smaller branches. I say the only thing we can do is unite for a common goal and become one strong branch instead of many small branches.

Please let me know what the other small branches think...


Gary
Middletown-OH

[JadeCorsett]

You want to merge the 5- branches physically or metaphorically?

Sorry you guys are getting the butt end of the stick because of not having enough employees. There's always a negative to a positive. Though some would argue the 2,000 SBs mark idea isn't a positive. I happen to really like the idea, so I guess I'm left out.

[garylmoore78]

I also like the 2000.00 idea... It works. But for whatever reason there is a large section of branches that dont seem to have the same participation that they once had.

I am trying to open discussion to see if we would get anough people in small branches interested in joining 1 Common branch... so I guess in essence we would be merging in a sense.

[JadeCorsett]

I don't think that's such a good idea. If you mean all the small branches transferring into one branch, then what about the people that join afterward? They'd be left alone in an inactive branch. Plus, corporate wouldn't go for a merging of tons of branches. I highly doubt they're even going to make branch cuts this year. I believe it would just be easier to sit it out and wait for 2 or 3 more employees. All you need is a bit of recruiting, getting out there and talking to people.

[labguy3000]

garylmoore78, on Oct 19 2009, 10:56 AM, said:

I also like the 2000.00 idea... It works. But for whatever reason there is a large section of branches that dont seem to have the same participation that they once had.

I am trying to open discussion to see if we would get anough people in small branches interested in joining 1 Common branch... so I guess in essence we would be merging in a sense.

Yeah- the only thing that's changed since last season is the $2,000 SB thing. Branches that had only 10-15 members are sure to have only 1 or 2 now, like mine, where I'm the only member. I may never have 5 in our branch...

[beachinbrunette]

I was thinking about the $2000 thing earlier, while I was in the shower. Why I was thinking about it there, I have no idea. My thoughts were that 3.0 would have had a more successful start if OLC hadn't had the $2000 minimum, but instead if she'd just allowed people to join up and then gotten more proactive on her end by cutting those who, after 2 weeks, didn't earn any Sb at all. The smaller branches that were once very active would still have remained so, and there wouldn't be the issue of RM-less branches that are sort of flailing around right now trying to survive. So was it basically an issue of OLC not wanting to put in the extra work to cut employees who 'abandon their job' after 2 weeks? I mean, if they're wanting DMI to reflect real life by sending us a memo about 'these tough economic times' and 'affording an RM salary', then terminating employees from a branch for not showing up seems like a more acceptable and realistic approach than what was actually put into place.

[/end rant]

[TomAnderson]

The larger branches should loan us an employee to get to the 5 employee minimum. At that point, they can have their employee back.

[beachinbrunette]

No, you have to stay at 5 employees minimum.

Here's another quick thought: who is approving transfers in the RM-less branches? If the answer is 'no one', then what if that pending transfer is the one that would be the fifth employee and therefore enable the branch to have an RM?

[JadeCorsett]

I believe OLC stated that the transfers would go through automatically to the RMless branches. Don't know if it works though.

[djkw418]

i was reading the thread...


then i saw that beachinbrunette was in the shower...


what were we talking about?

[beachinbrunette]

OMG :blush:

[JadeCorsett]

[PWB2FNB]

djkw418, on Oct 19 2009, 07:17 PM, said:

i was reading the thread...


then i saw that beachinbrunette was in the shower...


what were we talking about?

Focus .... focus .....

I like the idea of the 2000 SBs to get back into the branches to weed out the people who really didn't do anything, but I agree it's making for some pretty small branches and overall participation is lower this year.

I don't know that merging is really the answer. We would end up with fewer branches and it would feel like we were losing some of the branch identities we had built up over the last two years.

I think the people within the branches will be more active, so once you get them into your branch you'll have a good group. Right now it's a matter of recruiting and it's tough because everyone is out there doing the same thing.

The best case scenario is hoping for happy co-workers from 2.0 making their way back to the branch this year.

[JadeCorsett]

PWB2FNB, on Oct 19 2009, 02:34 PM, said:

Focus .... focus .....

I like the idea of the 2000 SBs to get back into the branches to weed out the people who really didn't do anything, but I agree it's making for some pretty small branches and overall participation is lower this year.

I don't know that merging is really the answer. We would end up with fewer branches and it would feel like we were losing some of the branch identities we had built up over the last two years.

I think the people within the branches will be more active, so once you get them into your branch you'll have a good group. Right now it's a matter of recruiting and it's tough because everyone is out there doing the same thing.

The best case scenario is hoping for happy co-workers from 2.0 making their way back to the branch this year.

This year seems to be all about the regulars. And by regular I mean those that consistently come online.

Merging and cutting branches is definitely not the answer because we'd be losing over 30 branches. That deep a cut is way too much and won't bode too well.

We all just need to play the patience game with every aspect of DMI whether that's glitches, tasks, or new employees. Recruiting is hard, but if you really want your branches to go forward, you gotta try. (Just don't poach).

[cerralee]

I keep checking out the old members in my branch there are several that look like they are trying to get to join in, maybe a task with a few more schrute bucks up for grab would help.

[champy4prez]

I personally don't see a problem with cutting branches. I think they should make this game more realistic with branches closing because of lack of performance. It would make recruiting more competitive.

[beachinbrunette]

True, but the whole 'lack of performance' thing could be attributed to OLC making the changes they did for 3.0.

[JadeCorsett]

champy4prez, on Oct 19 2009, 02:49 PM, said:

I personally don't see a problem with cutting branches. I think they should make this game more realistic with branches closing because of lack of performance. It would make recruiting more competitive.

A couple branches, maybe. But over 30 branches being shut down? That's over 100 people give or take scrounging around for a new branch. Is it really worth it to have all that chaos?

[champy4prez]

I agree. Cut the 2,000 minimum, and cut the branches that still don't perform.

[PWB2FNB]

I think you're right about being patient.

Everything is getting fixed. Everyone needs to remember that you can't just twitch your nose and make everything magically go the way you want it to. Some things are just taking a little bit of time.

We all need to remember that we were all new once and that if we help those who are new along, they'll learn faster and we'll all be able to enjoy the game more.

I think the 2000 SBs was all about making this year about the people who were regulars. If you aren't a regular, you're really not going to be interested in making the effort to get back to a branch.