User:Abd/Landmark Education/Abd/Company/Commentary

'''This page is maintained to show the history of this resource before forking. The significant content -- discussion -- was restored to the resource supra.''' --Abd (discuss • contribs) 20:50, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment
The above text has been cherry-picked to make it appear that Erhard exercises, through associates, on-going control over the company. The current Wikipedia article has a more balanced presentation of corporate officers, listing as "key people," Harry Rosenberg, Mick Leavitt, Joe DiMaggio, and Nancy Zapolski. Only one of those four is an Erhard relative, AFAIK. Basically, Landmark has enemies, who have spent decades assembling "evidence" of this or that, "facts" designed to create appearances they consider negative. I know people who are generating the course material, and they don't ask Werner; the material is generated by the distinctions and what Landmark calls the Self, as such material has been generated for thousands of years or more. "You will know them by their fruits." --Abd (discuss • contribs) 17:08, 26 October 2013 (UTC) These are key, top-level positions. These are facts. And these are individuals who exert control over the company and top-down culture from the very nature of their organizational chart roles. -- Cirt (talk) 18:44, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Chairman of the Board = Terry Giles = Werner Erhard lawyer
 * 2) General Counsel = Art Schreiber = former Chairman of the Board = Werner Erhard lawyer
 * 3) CEO = Harry Rosenberg = brother of Werner Erhard
 * 4) Board member = Joan Rosenberg = sister of Werner Erhard

Comments
-- Cirt (talk) 18:47, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The description is inaccurate, there is no "heavy emphasis" on volunteering at the Forum. I don't recall it being mentioned at all. The possibility of Assisting is only raised formally in the Futures Meetings held with coaches in the last month or so of the Self-Expression and Leadership Program; which completes the Curriculum for Living; the Assisting Program is given as one option. Someone at the Department of Labor misinterpreted the evidence, which isn't uncommon for bureaucrats. There is an emphasis on participants having conversations with friends and family about the training, that was probably confused with assisting. The statistic I heard is that only about 5% of Forum participants join the Assisting Program. Most people "continue the conversation," if they choose to do that, in the Seminar Series, which is cheap precisely because it is entirely run by volunteers, except for overall Center involvement in scheduling and collecting tuition, etc.
 * I have been unable to find out what actually happened in France, I've been interested in this for three years. Landmark simply withdrew from France when the determination was made there. As to the U.S., I know of no case where Landmark was required to pay the volunteers. The Department of Labor cases were settled by Landmark by paying overtime for employees who had voluntarily worked additional hours, apparently. The reports above mix up the two issues.
 * There are mission-critical jobs, jobs where Landmark is legally responsible for job performance, and those are done by Staff. The jobs that the Department of Labor considered necessary, that would "have to be performed by staff,' of not done by volunteers, are jobs that enhance quality and improve customer satisfaction. I.e., at the back of the room on a Landmark Forum Completion Evening, there may be a half-dozen tables with a dozen volunteers, generally from the Introduction Leader Program, assisting participants in registering. If the structure were different, to comply with the claims of the Department of Labor, there would be a single cashier. That's all. Instead, a person registering can have a deep conversation with someone who is actively involved in the work, who can answer questions in detail, and it isn't rushed.
 * Again, evidence is being cherry-picked to create an impression. Outside of France, Landmark has never been required to pay volunteers, and the only findings that were sustained were failure to pay overtime and to keep accurate time records, and Landmark consented to correcting that.
 * Behind this presentation of claims about unpaid labor is a thinking about "poor oppressed employees." Staff, however, are all highly experienced graduates, generally Introduction Leaders as a minimum, and someone who "needs the job" doesn't get hired. They will be counselled to get a regular job! I've seen it happen. And, indeed, the person promptly got a fantastic job, well-paying, doing what she loved, etc. I saw two truly excellent Staff members get married, and leave Staff, because they were planning on having children and now needed better-paying careers. People at the level of training represented by the Introduction Leader distinction can get jobs, because they have the necessary skills to inspire people to hire them. It's like clockwork. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 17:56, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Above is opinion by an individual admittedly already immersed in the culture of the company, presenting an admitted bias of an insider viewpoint from someone who actively volunteers to promote the goals of the company.
 * 2) The report of the United States Department of Labor in Texas in 2006 stands for itself. The U.S. government determined that the volunteers are employees.
 * 3) Anyone who was a volunteer for Landmark could conceivably contact the U.S. Department of Labor for their help in garnering back-wages.
 * 4) These are simply facts that are not in dispute. This is the history of the 2006 report. This is not "criticism", but simply the factual determination of the United States government.

Comments
-- Cirt (talk) 18:50, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have not seen a report of Landmark suing someone for ordinary criticism. However, they are famous for legally objecting to being called a "cult," which is an opinion or judgment, not a legally establishable fact. Landmark is a ready target for lawsuits, they have assets. If they frivolously sued someone for legitimate criticism, someone would, indeed, sue back and could win. Any examples? What is reported above is opinion from a paper written by attorneys for the defendant in a suit, who maintained highly critical and often misleading public information as if it were fact, and who refused to take responsibility for that. So Landmark sued. Wikipedia, when faced with legal claims over expression of opinion like that, takes the material down, promptly. Many people don't know the law over defamation and attempted damage to reputation. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 18:12, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The document cited begins with a set of alleged facts about Landmark that are merely rumor that has often been repeated about Landmark. For example, keeping people in a room against their will would be kidnapping. It's highly unlikely that it ever happened, but I know what might have actually happened that got turned into the report. Someone was reminded, by an unskillful assistant, of a commitment they had made to remain in the room. Maybe they *asked.* And they sat down, and walked away with a story that "they wouldn't let me go to the bathroom." But participants, in registering, have formally agreed to be responsible for their own health and well-being. That includes deciding whether or not to break a prior agreement, because of necessity. I've never seen anyone even be asked why they were leaving the room. People leave and go to the bathroom, it happens frequently, though experienced participants don't do that, normally, because they have learned to plan ahead. There are people in the back, by the door, but they are there to open the door for anyone leaving, so that it makes no noise. They do not ask participants why they are leaving, period. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 18:12, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) This is a most interesting analysis above, and is a very useful reflection into what is known in psychology as cognitive dissonance.
 * 2) The cognitive dissonance in this case study, is both the reflections of the individual, and the statements of the company itself.
 * 3) The company statements say it stands for the freedom of full self-expression, to use its jargon.
 * 4) However, it often only stands for the freedom of full self-expression, of things other than criticism of the company, itself.
 * 5) Therefore, this creates a paradox. Therefore, cognitive dissonance.