MRK SP Overtime Lawsuit Filed Dec 2010

Quote




Just like the Schedel vs. Merck case from 07. Merck continues to argue Merck reps are not true sales people and thus not entitled to OT pay. It is now 2010 and there is no resolution.
 




Anonymous said:
Just like the Schedel vs. Merck case from 07. Merck continues to argue Merck reps are not true sales people and thus not entitled to OT pay. It is now 2010 and there is no resolution.
Click to expand...

The difference is that last year, the Department of Labor specifically listed pharma reps as employees who are entitled to over time pay. The DOL has now started to appear in court to argue on behalf of the plantiffs.

Merck leadership knows they are screwed. Why do you think they are turning us into customer service reps? They know that they are going to have to pay us all out at some point.
 




So now we are not sales people. Then how did they rank us on sales numbers? Not to mention using those rankings to eliminate people. The lower 10% righttttttttt. I'm confused
 








Anonymous said:
So now we are not sales people. Then how did they rank us on sales numbers? Not to mention using those rankings to eliminate people. The lower 10% righttttttttt. I'm confused
Click to expand...

For the Schedel case Merck countered with over 100 questions. Merck argued that Merck sales reps don't really sell anything, they market drugs to physicians. Merck also argued that a lack of discretion is required for sales reps to be considered eligible for overtime pay.

Now then why they rank you in terms of sales? Ask Dick, not me. :-(
 








Anonymous said:
For the Schedel case Merck countered with over 100 questions. Merck argued that Merck sales reps don't really sell anything, they market drugs to physicians. Merck also argued that a lack of discretion is required for sales reps to be considered eligible for overtime pay.

Now then why they rank you in terms of sales? Ask Dick, not me. :-(
Click to expand...

For all the years that I spent in HQ, I believe that I heard the FSF (Field SALES Force) referred to as SALES about 95% of the time and (when Sr. Sls Leadership was around) the other 5% was as PROFESSIONALS.

IMHO, the majority of our FSF are both (e.g., PROFESSIONAL SALES people).

Wouldn't it be fun to play 100 questions with Mother?
 




Anonymous said:
For all the years that I spent in HQ, I believe that I heard the FSF (Field SALES Force) referred to as SALES about 95% of the time and (when Sr. Sls Leadership was around) the other 5% was as PROFESSIONALS.

IMHO, the majority of our FSF are both (e.g., PROFESSIONAL SALES people).

Wouldn't it be fun to play 100 questions with Mother?
Click to expand...

Actually 110 questions and I am looking at them.

Question 93 - At cluster meetings, you and other Professional Representatives discussed and decided how to carry out tactical plans in your territory.

Question 87 - You decided the topics for the PDG (Peer Discussion Group) in accordance with Merck policy.

There was also another OT case called Patty Lee Smith vs. Johnson & Johnson. Both this Schedel and the Patty Lee Smith cases state that sales reps are misclassified as exempt employees and unlawfully denied OT wages in violation of the FLSA.
 




Anonymous said:
Actually 110 questions and I am looking at them.

Question 93 - At cluster meetings, you and other Professional Representatives discussed and decided how to carry out tactical plans in your territory.

Question 87 - You decided the topics for the PDG (Peer Discussion Group) in accordance with Merck policy.

There was also another OT case called Patty Lee Smith vs. Johnson & Johnson. Both this Schedel and the Patty Lee Smith cases state that sales reps are misclassified as exempt employees and unlawfully denied OT wages in violation of the FLSA.
Click to expand...

Agreed. We are PROMOTERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!PERIOD.

Dear Merck........................K-A-R-M-A IS A B-I-OOO-T--CH
 




Anonymous said:
Do you think Merck's "purpose" included the risk of losing REMICADE, and having the majority of SGP's pipeline be phantom?
Click to expand...

Merck's purpose was to do whatever it would take to save Remicade (hence, the reverse merger); as for SP's pipeline, Merck thought it was promising...pipelines are always "iffy". Only hindsight is 20/20.
 




A pipeline is just that a pipeline--maybe robust in the number of products but fraught with high risks--need pipeline yes but the pipeline is no good if no products make it to the reps to sell. Well, Merck you win some and boy have you lost out on this SP pipeline!
 
















Top Bottom
Back
Quote