News: IT'S THE 2ND ANNUAL GUATEMALA LIBRARY PROJECT BOOK DRIVE!    LOOKING FOR DONATIONS OF SCIENCE BOOKS THIS YEAR.    Check it out in the "Extending the Hand of Kindness" folder or here: http://www.etiquettehell.com/smf/index.php?topic=139832.msg3372084#msg3372084   

  • March 27, 2017, 08:07:46 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74  (Read 3077121 times)

1 Member and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Slartibartfast

  • Member
  • Posts: 12560
    • Nerdy Necklaces - my Etsy shop!
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #10935 on: March 25, 2017, 11:30:44 AM »
I wonder if ladies of a certain age are considered to be people who'd fall for that "you should discuss it with your husband" ploy.  I had a bank employee try that one on me last year.    I'm 52, though - I wouldn't have thought I looked like it would work on me.  (It didn't.)


I keep thinking of which generation of women that would have had the best chance of working with,  and I really think that there may be a few women in their 80's or 90's who that line work work on,  but thinking about my mother's friends,  who would all be over 100 years old,  and my great Aunts,  who were already over 60 in the 1960's,  it was more likely the husband's would have to talk it over with the wife if they wanted to spend any significant amount of money.

My mother got a similar line one time when someone tried to talk to her into a timeshare when me and her went to Disney World 20 years ago as the salesperson was at a flea market next store and talking to people.  My mother said my husband isn't here, the sales person said she had to have him there and he ended his spiel.

I worked as office-help-slash-receptionist for a Timeshare hotel once upon a time, and this is accurate. It's not because they think the man must be in charge, though - they want both spouses there so they can talk you into signing up for a timeshare right that very day. Most people wouldn't take on a financial commitment that big without discussing it with their spouse, which would give them time to realize what a terrible deal it is  :-\

VorFemme

  • Member
  • Posts: 16097
  • It's too darned hot! (song from Kiss Me, Kate)
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #10936 on: March 25, 2017, 12:38:39 PM »
In sitting down at our "Owner Update Meetings" (a sales pitch by any other name still smells) - there may be a legal requirement to have a married couple there together for any sale made to be legal.  There are legal requirements about contracts (can't be "under the influence" and a few other things that sometimes vary by legal jurisdiction) that could cause a sale to be "null & void" and they are trying to avoid that.

So go on vacation with your sibling or children instead of your spouse....and you'll be able to avoid at least some of the sales pitches.  That might explain the reality based reason as to why novels of the 1920s to the 1950s had the wife take the kids to the seashore or the mountains and the man joined them from "the city" by train for weekends only.  No sales pitches would have been possible until he got there & he could plead that he didn't have time before he had to get back on the train...
Let sleeping dragons be.......morning breath......need I explain?

Tierrainney

  • Member
  • Posts: 1290
  • Where the swans winter
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #10937 on: March 25, 2017, 01:04:21 PM »
In regards to the talk to the husband threads,

a few years ago I was in Las Vegas with my husband. We would be walking up to a casino, and suddenly he'd disappear from my side, only to appear again inside. After a few times i asked what was he doing. He was trying to avoid the timeshare and vacation share people. He'd noticed that they were very aggressively targeting couples and ignoring singles. Since he didn't want to be hassled, he was making us look like singles. 

Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.

ladyinblue

  • Member
  • Posts: 44
  • pass the brain bleach and the clue by four!
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #10938 on: March 25, 2017, 01:28:10 PM »
I like the way your husband thinks!!!!
I'm a morning person except on mondays

TeamBhakta

  • Member
  • Posts: 3050
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #10939 on: Yesterday at 07:11:02 PM »
A grocery store manager asked 65 employees to work four hours for pizza & no pay. Obviously that did not go over well:

http://thenewdaily.com.au/news/state/wa/2017/03/19/coles-free-labour-penalty-rates/

LadyDyani

  • Member
  • Posts: 996
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #10940 on: Today at 12:05:40 PM »
In sitting down at our "Owner Update Meetings" (a sales pitch by any other name still smells) - there may be a legal requirement to have a married couple there together for any sale made to be legal.  There are legal requirements about contracts (can't be "under the influence" and a few other things that sometimes vary by legal jurisdiction) that could cause a sale to be "null & void" and they are trying to avoid that.

So go on vacation with your sibling or children instead of your spouse....and you'll be able to avoid at least some of the sales pitches.  That might explain the reality based reason as to why novels of the 1920s to the 1950s had the wife take the kids to the seashore or the mountains and the man joined them from "the city" by train for weekends only.  No sales pitches would have been possible until he got there & he could plead that he didn't have time before he had to get back on the train...

Are timeshare loans like a mortgage? Our home loan and the house/land deed are in only my husband's name, but I had to be there and sign paperwork saying that I knew he was taking out such a large loan for property.
English doesn't borrow from other languages, it follows them down dark alleys and beats them up and searches their pockets for loose grammar.

VorFemme

  • Member
  • Posts: 16097
  • It's too darned hot! (song from Kiss Me, Kate)
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #10941 on: Today at 12:39:41 PM »
In sitting down at our "Owner Update Meetings" (a sales pitch by any other name still smells) - there may be a legal requirement to have a married couple there together for any sale made to be legal.  There are legal requirements about contracts (can't be "under the influence" and a few other things that sometimes vary by legal jurisdiction) that could cause a sale to be "null & void" and they are trying to avoid that.

So go on vacation with your sibling or children instead of your spouse....and you'll be able to avoid at least some of the sales pitches.  That might explain the reality based reason as to why novels of the 1920s to the 1950s had the wife take the kids to the seashore or the mountains and the man joined them from "the city" by train for weekends only.  No sales pitches would have been possible until he got there & he could plead that he didn't have time before he had to get back on the train...

Are timeshare loans like a mortgage? Our home loan and the house/land deed are in only my husband's name, but I had to be there and sign paperwork saying that I knew he was taking out such a large loan for property.

A lot of time shares are "deeded properties" in that you own a percentage of the property...so, yeah - that's probably why they want both partners in the marriage there.   

Due to the military moving us from hither to yon at times & on short notice, VorGuy has once or twice taken a limited power of attorney with him to the new location to get the a house bought (our "old house" may have had paperwork faxed back & forth, mailed overnight, or I dealt with things with a limited power of attorney with his name on  it - depends on which house).   

I expect that very few people are going to happen to have a power of attorney in their pockets for dealing with purchasing any real property while on vacation, so the time share people want both members of a couple in their clutches...
Let sleeping dragons be.......morning breath......need I explain?