I'm a 'Landmarkian'
Posted by:
patrick-darcy
()
Date: December 25, 2004 10:38PM
any idea of how much art gets paid. he werners brother and hes
the head attorney and ceo or cio of landmark.
this is most likely a secret.
the head attorney and ceo or cio of landmark.
this is most likely a secret.
I'm a 'Landmarkian'
Posted by:
glam
()
Date: December 25, 2004 10:56PM
Thanks, Sonnie Dee, for the info about who does/doesn't get paid. I'm amazed that even some of the people who run the seminars are "volunteers," too.
I don't think Landmark should be a for-profit business or a non-profit business; I think they should be [b:5e227b9101]out[/b:5e227b9101] of business.
I also don't necessarily believe that the unpaid labor force is what keeps Landmark profitable; I think it's what keeps them SUPER profitable. After all, most companies still manage to turn a profit while paying all of their employees a decent wage. Landmark's eliminated most of the expenses associated with payroll and benefits, as well as advertising and marketing (because their seminar attendees and "assistants" do most of the advertising for them, free). So it stands to reason that Landmark makes much more profit than a comparably-sized corporation. And that the top people make piles of money off what amounts to slave labor.
How they continue to get away with this in the USA is beyond me. Aren't there laws about paying people and offering benefits if you're a for-profit company?
Quote
Regardless of just whom works for cheap and who works for nothing, I think my point and question of JF still stands. I do hope you (Glam and Acid Raindeer) agree in this regard.
I don't think Landmark should be a for-profit business or a non-profit business; I think they should be [b:5e227b9101]out[/b:5e227b9101] of business.
I also don't necessarily believe that the unpaid labor force is what keeps Landmark profitable; I think it's what keeps them SUPER profitable. After all, most companies still manage to turn a profit while paying all of their employees a decent wage. Landmark's eliminated most of the expenses associated with payroll and benefits, as well as advertising and marketing (because their seminar attendees and "assistants" do most of the advertising for them, free). So it stands to reason that Landmark makes much more profit than a comparably-sized corporation. And that the top people make piles of money off what amounts to slave labor.
How they continue to get away with this in the USA is beyond me. Aren't there laws about paying people and offering benefits if you're a for-profit company?
I'm a 'Landmarkian'
Posted by:
patrick-darcy
()
Date: December 25, 2004 11:41PM
landmark is growing like weeds. they have centers
all over the world. they have also mentioned, or people
that have come to the landmark newsgroup that some
years they make a profit and some they dont.
i would think the only reason they dont show a lot
of profit would be because they reinvest the money so they
can become ever bigger.
landmark doesnt transcend anything. landmark uses hypnosis
to put their will in their victims.
all over the world. they have also mentioned, or people
that have come to the landmark newsgroup that some
years they make a profit and some they dont.
i would think the only reason they dont show a lot
of profit would be because they reinvest the money so they
can become ever bigger.
landmark doesnt transcend anything. landmark uses hypnosis
to put their will in their victims.
I'm a 'Landmarkian'
Posted by:
elena
()
Date: December 26, 2004 12:32AM
Quote
glam
[I also don't necessarily believe that the unpaid labor force is what keeps Landmark profitable; I think it's what keeps them SUPER profitable. After all, most companies still manage to turn a profit while paying all of their employees a decent wage. Landmark's eliminated most of the expenses associated with payroll and benefits, as well as advertising and marketing (because their seminar attendees and "assistants" do most of the advertising for them, free). So it stands to reason that Landmark makes much more profit than a comparably-sized corporation. And that the top people make piles of money off what amounts to slave labor.]
.....especially when what they are "selling" amounts to ~nothing,~ or the equivalent of nothing; some cocked-up "ideological" hodge-podge, garbage "philosophy." Especially when what they are selling costs them absolutely nothing, or whatever "licensing" fee they pay to Werner Erhard, which doesn't count.
Ellen
I'm a 'Landmarkian'
Posted by:
glam
()
Date: December 26, 2004 01:20AM
Quote
.....especially when what they are "selling" amounts to ~nothing,~ or the equivalent of nothing; some cocked-up "ideological" hodge-podge, garbage "philosophy."
I'd go even further: what they're selling is WORSE than nothing, it's a big box of psychological harm wrapped up in a twisted philisophical bow.
I'm a 'Landmarkian'
Posted by:
elena
()
Date: December 26, 2004 01:41AM
Quote
glamQuote
.....especially when what they are "selling" amounts to ~nothing,~ or the equivalent of nothing; some cocked-up "ideological" hodge-podge, garbage "philosophy."
I'd go even further: what they're selling is WORSE than nothing, it's a big box of psychological harm wrapped up in a twisted philisophical bow.
Yes. It's not even as good as regular old "snake-oil," which was mostly alcohol mixed with some other, mostly harmless ingredients and "worked" some of the time due to the placebo effect. No, it's more poisonous than that. Imagine a pill that made you sicker, or, in a psychological sense, made you more disturbed, meaner, and more obnoxious, and increased the very conditions that prompted you to seek out a "cure" in the first place; anxiety, lonliness, or some sort of existential crisis. Pretty funny, I imagine, from their standpoint, as the "training" has some people convinced that "sicker" is actually "better." Like a con-job in which the mark believes, through some additional sleight-of-hand, that he "made out." A "double-con," maybe?
Ellen
I'm a 'Landmarkian'
Posted by:
sonnie_dee
()
Date: December 26, 2004 07:32AM
Quote
any idea of how much art gets paid. he werners brother and hes
the head attorney and ceo or cio of landmark.
All staff salaries are kept confidential, I only knew what some people were getting paid because we talked about it after we resigned.
Art Schrieber is Head Legal Counsel I imagine he earns a lot. Art is not werners brother, Harry Rosenberg is Werners brother and harry is CEO. there is also a sister who is a vice president but I can't remember her name for the life of me.
I will never forget the first time I met Harry Rosenberg and his sister. His first words out of his mouth were along the lines of: " We are here to make a profit. We want to make money"
I'm a 'Landmarkian'
Posted by:
Acid Reindeer
()
Date: December 26, 2004 09:27AM
IMHO do they believe their "transform the world" sales pitch or not or some of both? have always wondered about that one.
I hope you write a book about your experiences, BTW. though a lot of people read this messageboard, doubtless, a book would a different kind of effect.
I hope you write a book about your experiences, BTW. though a lot of people read this messageboard, doubtless, a book would a different kind of effect.
I'm a 'Landmarkian'
Posted by:
Acid Reindeer
()
Date: December 26, 2004 09:38AM
Quote
glam
So it stands to reason that Landmark makes much more profit than a comparably-sized corporation. And that the top people make piles of money off what amounts to slave labor.
saying that the assisting amounts to slave labor detracts from the fact of the slave trade which has existed and continues to exist. I personally know of woman who lived as a sex slave in the United States up until a few years ago whom an acquaintance bought from her owner never mind the indentured migrant workers and prison laborers in this country alone, never mind the world.
if we use misapply words and definitions too much we destroy the meaning of the words used.
when you say slavery, let slavery mean slavery, not anything else, or anything less.
I do agree with your intent, just not the terminology.
I'm a 'Landmarkian'
Posted by:
sonnie_dee
()
Date: December 27, 2004 12:03PM
Quote
IMHO do they believe their "transform the world" sales pitch or not or some of both? have always wondered about that one.
Depending on who you are with in the organisation depends on your belief in that "transform" the world.
When I started on staff I did so to "transform" the world. Alot of staff do that. The higher up you are the more I believe that although spouting the words they actually have a lesser belief in them. They are here to make money. For some I imagine it is a bit of both.
People are drawn in by idealism and leave when they realise how much they were sucked in. Everyone wants to make a difference in this world and this is where Landmark hits people. It is easy to be manipulated when the people doing the manipulation do it at the spot that makes the most impact.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.