Lulu Belle
Moonbat
We wound up not doing a Scn tech consultancy, so signing a WISE contract was no longer needed.
My recollection is that all Scientologist owned businesses had to sign up with WISE, regardless of what they did.
Am I mistaken?
We wound up not doing a Scn tech consultancy, so signing a WISE contract was no longer needed.
Wow, they were lining up jobs for exSO? That's different. I'd imagine not just to keep tabs, but to get them working and paying their SO debts straight away.
When I routed out, ex-staff were still viewed as F/Lers and lowlifes, though some businesses welcomed us. I worked at a few of them the first year or two, but eventually tired of the low pay, lack of benefits and nagging to pay my F/L debt.
I vaguely remember the sinister man posters, too.
Mike Howson had long lines as AOLA's Public MAA. Back then, it only costs $50 to see the MAA and Mike had a real knack for arbitration and a good reputation. WISE charged hefty sums and never seemed to resolve any of the issues. It became off-policy for public to buy an MAA handling at one of the service orgs to resolve a business dispute because they had WISE. So even though AOLA stopped selling the separate MAA handlings, pre-OTs still ended up at the MAA's office when the C/S would send them, anyway, because they could not resolve the problems with WISE. Sometimes the WISE reps just made matters worse.
Wow, they were lining up jobs for exSO? That's different. I'd imagine not just to keep tabs, but to get them working and paying their SO debts straight away. When I routed out, ex-staff were still viewed as F/Lers and lowlifes, though some businesses welcomed us. I worked at a few of them the first year or two, but eventually tired of the low pay, lack of benefits and nagging to pay my F/L debt.
My recollection is that all Scientologist owned businesses had to sign up with WISE, regardless of what they did.
Am I mistaken?
You had to be WISE if you (A) hired other Scns, or (B) did business with other Scns. I did not hire Scns, nor did I do business with other Scns, so they did not bother me. My business at the time was a one-man consultancy, so they didn't think me worth while (and I avoided telling them how much money I made, so it stayed that way).
My recollection is that these businesses for the most part welcomed ex-staff as employees. Ex-staff were used to slaving away for no pay and pretty much expected to be treated like shit. What's not to like?
Wow, they were lining up jobs for exSO? That's different.
Apparently those routing out were given money too.
Not a lot; I think $500. Still, $500 more than the rest of us got.
My recollection is that these businesses for the most part welcomed ex-staff as employees. Ex-staff were used to slaving away for no pay and pretty much expected to be treated like shit. What's not to like?
My recollection is that all Scientologist owned businesses had to sign up with WISE, regardless of what they did.
Am I mistaken?
The $500 was not them "being compassionate." It was the consideration (legal usage) for waiving one's rights in signing the stuff you had to to get out of there (won't tattle to the press etc). $500 was probably the lowest amount they thought would qualify.
Paul
I remember being at a staff briefing; I think it was probably sometime in the mid-80s.
...
I don't remember much about the briefing except for a few things. As Mike said, the briefer said that the purpose of WISE was to keep External Influences of Scientology business away from the staff. I don't actually remember if it was this time or another time, but we were also told one of WISE's purposes was to keep business disputes between Scientologists in these businesses off org lines. (From what I remember regarding AOLA's MAA area, they did a lousy job of that.)
Years later, after I was long out, I remember reading (maybe on ARS? Don't remember.) that Sea Org staff routing out were getting jobs lined up for them by COS with some of these Scn owned businesses. I thought that was an .... interesting change of heart, and surprisingly pragmatic for an organization which is generally anything but.
It does make sense to do this. It keeps these ex-staff in the fold and does allow COS to indirectly control them even after they leave staff, as their financial livelihood depends on toeing the party line.
My recollection is that all Scientologist owned businesses had to sign up with WISE, regardless of what they did.
Am I mistaken?
https://whyweprotest.net/threads/wise-leaks-numerous.55377/reply?quote=1148941[..]The real extortion was mostly run by WISE Sea Org staff like Quentin Strube from WISE in NY. He would find out what scientologists were doing any kind of personal business and demand of them that they join WISE, even at a low membership level. If they would not join he would assume they were "out ethics" and threaten to notify all WISE members that the person would not join and none of the members should do business with him/her. That right there is extortion in my book.
WISE had little to nothing to offer for membership fees but got many through such threats which had meaning if you wanted to continue to be a scientologist or even continue to deal with scientologists. [..]
I remember being at a staff briefing; I think it was probably sometime in the mid-80s.
It was a campaign that was being done by Int Management with or via WISE. There was probably more to it than posters, but all I remember are the posters.
These big posters were supposed to be put in the "staff only" areas of the Class V (at the time Class IV) orgs. There were a few different ones, but the basic message was the same. They depicted a person representing a staff member with a shadowy black figure complete with a hat ("black hat evil sinister guy") trying to get his clutches on the staff member. I don't remember the headline exactly but the message was that Black Hat Guy was Outside Businesses/External Influences trying to steal staff from delivering Total Freedom.
I don't remember much about the briefing except for a few things. As Mike said, the briefer said that the purpose of WISE was to keep External Influences of Scientology business away from the staff. I don't actually remember if it was this time or another time, but we were also told one of WISE's purposes was to keep business disputes between Scientologists in these businesses off org lines. (From what I remember regarding AOLA's MAA area, they did a lousy job of that.)
Years later, after I was long out, I remember reading (maybe on ARS? Don't remember.) that Sea Org staff routing out were getting jobs lined up for them by COS with some of these Scn owned businesses. I thought that was an .... interesting change of heart, and surprisingly pragmatic for an organization which is generally anything but.
It does make sense to do this. It keeps these ex-staff in the fold and does allow COS to indirectly control them even after they leave staff, as their financial livelihood depends on toeing the party line.
At one point, this was true. In the 80s. Anyone using an org board or ethics and other management policies for growing and maintaining their business were pressured to join and pay minimal membership. Quentin Strube was running this in Los Angeles as well as NY, for WISE Int. But so many people made a stink of it, ignored it or protested it ( as I did) that the practice was eventually stopped)
Denise ( then Larry) Brennan posted about this and more on WWP back in 2010
https://whyweprotest.net/threads/wise-leaks-numerous.55377/reply?quote=1148941
I was like " No way! Do you think I am stupid and can't read what WISE membership is for?". That didn't go over too well but I stuck to my guns. There was no way I was paying 10% of my gross business income to WISE just because I had a business.
One argument which was run on people was "If you are using LRH tech, then you must join WISE. If you are NOT using LRH tech in your business, then you are squirrel and need to go to Ethics!"
Actually, part of what I wrote above doesn't sit right with me. I don't think the concept of EXSO DB extended out to the public. I can remember dozens of times Scientology public went out of their way to be kind of help me, knowing my SO background, and the same for many others. There could even be some celebrity status as EX SO in the Public community, which results in part of the trap of staying in that world rather than biting the bullet and starting from the bottom up in the real world.
That doesn't change my opinion on the business problems in that community, just that I think many public did appreciate and want to support ex SO.
One argument which was run on people was "If you are using LRH tech, then you must join WISE. If you are NOT using LRH tech in your business, then you are squirrel and need to go to Ethics!"
HCO PL 12 Oct 1967 Issue II, titled “Sea Org Resignation, For Personnel Files” stated that anybody who resigned from the SO was an out-ethics degraded being and not eligible for org staff. It wasn't in the green volumes, so most public would not know about it.