- Report: #582663
Complaint Review: SLIM4Life d/b/a slimgenics - Internet Colorado
-
Author Not Confirmed
Why?
SLIM4Life d/b/a slimgenics
6568 South Racine Circle, Centennial Co Internet, 80111 Colorado, United States of America
Phone:
303-7994450
Web:
www.slimgenics.com
Categories:
Business Rating:
(0)
Tell us has your experience with this business or person been good?
SLIM4Life ,slimgenics slimgenics Deceptive recruiting practice; false job title and responsibility describpion; false income potential claims Internet, Colorado
This company places recruitment ads for its weight loss clinics that present the title and responsibilties of the job in a way that do not accurately portray the job as it really is. The job is in reality a weight loss groceries sales job, and the so-called 'weight loss counselor' is nothing more than a food diary record-recorder.
In addition, the company portrays itself as an Equal Employment Opportunity Company when in reality it wants primarily attractive young females who may or may not have credentials in nutrition. It seems that many of the females actually have credentials or education related to fashion merchandising, retail sales, sociology, or some other non-specific education with no core of study related to nutrition or health.
Some of the so-called managers and weight loss specialists have never used the products to lose weight, and have actually had liposuction to remove body fat withouth any concommitant use of the companies weight loss products or methodology.
2 Updates & Rebuttals
Kountkelobo
Hopkins,Minnesota,
USA
Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development
#2Author of original report
Wed, July 07, 2010
The Department of Employment and Econcomic Development has a record of the testimony supporting the Unemployment Compensation claim, the rebuttal, and the decision affirming benefits payment.
The findings of the sworn testimony resulted in the benefits decision to uphold the original decision that benefits could be claimed. Whatever the 'bitter' comment referred to should be considered slanderous. No misconduct was shown.
The prior comment is a defense of personal prejudice.
An age and sex discrimination interview was made with the Minnesota Department of Human Rights. The employer may not discharge an employee for beginning a complaint based on age or sex.
The employee has not relinquished the right to continue the age and sex discrimination complaint with continuing investigation by a the Minnesota Department of Human Rights.
BITTER
new hope,Minnesota,
United States of America
Bitter
#3General Comment
Wed, April 21, 2010
The above comment seemed not to acknowledge the persons own shortcomings or take any responsibility for their own experiences/actions ,they choose to blame and label everyone but them self in this scenario that paints them as the victim without telling the whole story. They honestly only know a fraction of the history of all its employees.
