Basic On A Chain

[everfree]

It is taught in Dianetics/Scientology that in order to get something to "blow" one needs to examine the earliest incident on a "chain". Thus let me examine my earliest experiences in Scn and the effects those incidents had.

Hello. My name is Gene Trujillo. I am 46 years old. I was first introduced to Scn in 1990 at the U-Way Mission in the U-District (basically composed of Tess Runyon, Brad Colling, and Brent Johnson) where I was body routed in at the age of 22. I stayed in and on Class V org staff for 11 years. I got out in 2001 - asked in a rollback session whether I wanted to continue supporting a management I knew by then to be corrupt and not reflecting my own values, or whether I wanted to leave. I chose leaving.

But that is the end of the story, and this is the beginning.

I was always interested in philosophy and the nature of reality. I had just lost my job a couple of weeks earlier so I was running low on money, so I bought a cheap course out of the Volunteer Minister's Handbook wherein I studied the Eight Dynamics.

I was really impressed with it because it said an optimum solution was one that took each dynamic into account. That made sense to me, I had seen groups that were too oriented towards the group, I had seen people who were selfishly too oriented towards themselves and not towards others, I knew that not enough attention was paid to the overall condition of life on the planet. Wow, a group that tries to take every aspect of life into account, what a concept!

Based on my excitement with the course and the fact that I was out of work, I was quickly recruited for staff. It wasn't exactly what I was looking for but they offered me a position in Treasury and I needed accounting skills because I knew I would have my own business one day. They told me they wouldn't make me rich but being only 22 I didn't need to be rich, I just needed my basic life needs met.

I told Tess Runyon, the main person recruiting me, that I was leery of the proportionate pay plan but I only needed $200/week - a fairly trivial sum I couldn't imagine any business not being able to afford proportionate pay or not - so I could pay my rent in a few weeks and be able to feed myself. She told me that $200 per week shouldn't be any problem at all because I was going to be an executive!

I was very excited. I could learn philosophy that takes all dynamics into account, be an executive, gain accounting skills, and be able to support myself - what could possibly go wrong?

 

[Lohan2008]

Please continue

 

[everfree]

Thank you.

I have not posted much lately so this may be slow, but I will certainly continue adding to this thread periodically.

My first week went smoothly until pay day at which point I was told that there had been an uncharacteristically low income week and there was no pay, that happens some time with the proportionate pay plan. I was annoyed and had major misgivings but decided to give it one more week because it had seemed so ideal.

When the second week had passed I was told that the pay was ready. I was relieved because I had been starting to think they might be dishonest, but I couldn't really believe that of a group that teaches optimum survival across all dynamics as their first lesson.

However, when I opened my pay packet it was $5! Brad Colling made a crack that at least I had enough to go get a Big Mac at McDonald's this week.

I was livid! I had told them my rent was due, that I only needed a couple hundred a week, I wasn't asking for much, they had assured me that it would be fine, but now I had been paid $5 in two weeks!

I was told that the reason people get angry is due to something called "overts", something bad that you have done. "Wait, you lied to me and now you're telling me that the reason I'm mad about it is because I have done bad things?!" Brent assured me that is how things work and told me that if I would start writing my overts and "withholds" I would feel better. It was a miraculous discovery by L Ron Hubbard. Well, based on the fact that the Eight Dynamics had been so cool I agreed to give it a shot, maybe there was something to it. I would find out.

 

[Dave B.]

=everfree;887417...... - what could possibly go wrong?

 

[everfree]

I want to stop the narrative right here - I will probably skip a lot anyways - and make a point because it is extremely illustrative of some of the more sordid aspects of CofS:

They flat out lied to me to my face. They knew all along that there was little or no pay. The mission where I started had been around for a number of years and had never paid anyone anything like $200/week and never did later. I was green as grass, I had no clue what Staff Pay was really like.

In my mind, I had got a somewhat unusual job that would gain me experience, be lots of fun, and at least meet my basic life needs by paying around $200/week. Because the actual conditions were misrepresented to me, I was unable to properly guide my life. I ended up being evicted from my apartment not through fault of my own - I had done everything right - but because I had counted on being paid as I had been told I was going to be paid, otherwise I would have kept job searching and made other arrangements.

If they had been honest, I probably would still have ended up volunteering, but it would have been with the full knowledge that I was a volunteer, and I would have arranged finances in another way and been able to protect myself. Since they lied, it had catastrophic effect on my life.

And their immediate response was to get me to look at MY overts. And then tell me that if I left, I wouldn't be able to do Scientology again because they would declare me a Suppressive Person for what they called "quicksilvering": leaving without replacing myself.

Yep, I had been in for two weeks and I had already been threatened with being Declared from being upset that their misrepresentation had hurt my life.

Over and over I saw this in CofS: lie to the new recruits about how bad it is, don't give them the real picture, then when they find out how bad it is, use their overts and even flat out coercion to keep them there.

No one ever apologized for lying to me. No one ever apologized for contributing to making me homeless. They didn't look at the Ethics of what THEY were doing, they only looked at MY ethics, as they benefited from my work via deception. And they did it with a straight face, with no discernible intent to harm. Hmmm...

 

[Gib]

snip

I was very excited. I could learn philosophy that takes all dynamics into account, be an executive, gain accounting skills, and be able to support myself - what could possibly go wrong?

oh boy, I thought the same when I joined staff. I sold everything, and uprooted in a new city cuz we wuz gonna turn into a celebrity center.

I joined the winning team. So I thought.

Not so,

Scientology, terra incognito, treat it as an adventure. You got that right, mr lr hubbard.

 

[Dean Blair]

I and the rest of the people I have known who joined staff have gone through the exact same thing that you went through. Proportionate pay is just their way of getting you to bite and become a staff member. The Sea Argh is just as bad. They tell you that you will get $50 a week and your room and board but there is often no pay, beans and rice for lunch and dinner, and a small stinky dorm room with twelve other guys. Scientology is totally comprised of lying liars who lie.

 

[everfree]

A note on dominance and overts

Overt: doing something bad, something you wouldn't like having done to you

Dominance: who is in charge. Hubbard correlated dominance to what he called the "service facsimile" which in his construct has to do with rightness/wrongness, survival of self/survival of others, and dominance/submission.

I always knew there was a relationship between overts and the service facsimile, but I somehow missed the lecture where he explains it.

Basically, the one in charge - the dominant one - gets to commit overts and get away with it.

Physically speaking, the leader (Alpha) wolf can beat up all the other wolves and get away with it.

Interpersonally speaking, if you can get the other guy to cough up his "overts" while not getting doing so yourself, you are in charge.

Being in charge, you get to impose your will and increase your survival while decreasing the survival of others.

 

[Gib]

I and the rest of the people I have known who joined staff have gone through the exact same thing that you went through. Proportionate pay is just their way of getting you to bite and become a staff member. The Sea Argh is just as bad. They tell you that you will get $50 a week and your room and board but there is often no pay, beans and rice for lunch and dinner, and a small stinky dorm room with twelve other guys. Scientology is totally comprised of lying liars who lie.

I actually thought Proportionate Pay was a good thing, sort of like profit sharing.

But the actual truth is because it didn't matter, there were just not enough customers, people interested to continue and pay more money to continue. Only a few would stick, but yet we had to constantly hire new staff which would take away from Proportionate Pay plan. WTF.

And then L Wrong says Marketing is supposed to drive in more customers than the Org can waste.

Wait a minute. I thought the tech was 100% standard and the tech could solve any case, and a class 8 C/S would boom an org, couldn't but help itself. So how could an Org waste customers. LOL

 

[dchoiceisalwaysrs]

Yep, a few other things have been noticed about cults

Perhaps this should be posted on all social studies classes back black boards nearest the most likely future cult leaders. lol

And on the Human rights annoucement boards in all scientology affilated organizations including stress test tables as a true public service.

Roll call should be followed by Chinese schooling this in orgs and RPFs.


http://www.prem-rawat-talk.org/forum/uploads/CultCharacteristics.htm

Example:
Information Control - Group controls what convert may read or hear. They discourage (forbid) contact with ex-members or anything critical of the group. May say it is the same as pornography making it not only sinful and dangerous but shameful as well. Ex-members become feared and avoidance of them becomes a "survival issue."


The leadership induces guilt feelings in members in order to control them.


Confession
Encouraging the destruction of individual ego through confession of personal weaknesses and innermost feelings of doubt

Phobias - The idea is planted that anyone who leaves goes into a life of depravity and sin, loses their sanity, dies, or will have children die, etc. Constant rumors of bad things happening to people who leave. No one ever leaves for "legitimate reasons

Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished

Instills a fear of leaving the group

A note on dominance and overts

Overt: doing something bad, something you wouldn't like having done to you

Dominance: who is in charge. Hubbard correlated dominance to what he called the "service facsimile" which in his construct has to do with rightness/wrongness, survival of self/survival of others, and dominance/submission.

I always knew there was a relationship between overts and the service facsimile, but I somehow missed the lecture where he explains it.

Basically, the one in charge - the dominant one - gets to commit overts and get away with it.

Physically speaking, the leader (Alpha) wolf can beat up all the other wolves and get away with it.

Interpersonally speaking, if you can get the other guy to cough up his "overts" while not getting doing so yourself, you are in charge.

Being in charge, you get to impose your will and increase your survival while decreasing the survival of others.

 

[ThetanExterior]

I remember when I'd been a member of public for maybe 10 years or so and another guy, who'd come into Scientology at about the same time as me, told me he was joining staff.

My immediate thought was WTF? I'd studied much more tech and policy than him and had audited staff members so I knew how awful it was to be on staff but I couldn't tell him because I would have been sent to Ethics if I had.

He said he'd been told he could work 8 hours a day so he was going to do 9 to 5 then go home in the evenings. I knew that they hadn't told him he needed to do two and a half hours study per day on top of the 8 hours work. In reality he would have been required to study from 9 to 12 then work until 10 or 11pm, depending on whether his stats were up or not. Plus, he would often have to stay much later.

They hadn't told him any of this and I had to keep it to myself or I would be in trouble.

Fortunately, before he joined staff he agreed to go to Flag for admin training and the Flag staff pissed him off so much he left Scientology!

 

[Vittorio]

I doubt that Ron lived on less than $200 a week.

When I started on staff I was never told half of the things that would happen. The staff don't say anything to new recruits because they know what they are doing is wrong.

 

[everfree]

I actually thought Proportionate Pay was a good thing, sort of like profit sharing.

That is how he initially sold it to the DC staff in 1957, but it is really just another example of his sleight of hand, saying one thing but having another intent. Hubbard supposedly has the "tech" of organizations. If the proportionate pay plan were actually intended to pay anyone a higher wage as it was presented, it would be the most dismal failure of a policy ever enacted. That was not really the intent, as evidenced by how it has been used ever since then.

What he really did is termed "risk management" or "risk transfer". One of the highest operating expenses of most organizations is payroll. In ethical organizations, the risk of meeting payroll - that is, the basic life needs of the employees - is born by the organization. If an organization can't afford to pay its staff, it closes. It doesn't expand any faster than its ability to create viable organizations that can meet payroll and other operating expenses. That is to avoid being destructive to the lives of the employees.

In Scientology, the risk of meeting the life expenses of the employees has been transferred from the organization to the employee. Basically, Hubbard was exploiting the staff so he could avoid even having to worry about meeting payroll. In the orgs, there was never a target of meeting payroll. In fact, the opposite was true - anyone who suggested perhaps we should be worrying about payroll is actually criticized as being "selfish" - as they work mega hours for free.

And then tell them that they don't produce enough to deserve to be given the basic necessities of life - as hundreds of millions pour into the organization. That was part of the con.

Once the risk of meeting the life expenses was transferred to the staff, as long as there is an organization, it will create positive cash flow for him, then later for Miscavige. It's very similar to a pyramid scheme, MLM scams use similar techniques all the time.

The person at the top reeps all the benefit, as long as they don't mind destroying the personal lives of their underlings. And he didn't. In fact, once he figured out that the staff would keep working for free, he created the Sea Org where he didn't even pretend to pay any more, and he exploited and abused even harder.

The tale of Hubbard, the proportionate pay plan, and pay in CofS in general is one of increasing exploitation.

 

[Gib]

That is how he initially sold it to the DC staff in 1957, but it is really just another example of his sleight of hand,

snip

I sniped your post only so I can respond back.

Thank you everfree.

What you wrote is profound, for me at least.

I don't have the words to express the gratitude of what you wrote.

I could comment on every paragraph extolling what you wrote. And bringing up hubbard's sleight of hand.

I never thought of the idea that he transferred the risk to the members.

And he called it our responsibility. Not the so called "tech" responsibility.

 

[Ogsonofgroo]

Hiya Everfree! Nice that you returned, please feel free to tell the rapt audience moar!

thanks byeee\\

crikey, :wave; :WAVE? :waife: :wavensauser: :vaav:

 

[Gib]

What he really did is termed "risk management" or "risk transfer". One of the highest operating expenses of most organizations is payroll. In ethical organizations, the risk of meeting payroll - that is, the basic life needs of the employees - is born by the organization. If an organization can't afford to pay its staff, it closes. It doesn't expand any faster than its ability to create viable organizations that can meet payroll and other operating expenses. That is to avoid being destructive to the lives of the employees.

What Hubbard actually did as well

is get people to work for him for practically no pay, no exchange, or the condition of tax robbers he so eloquently railed against. LOL

We now have the Volunteer Ministers, VM's they are that for sure, volunteer. LOL

And we have the OT Committees composed of OT8's and other OT's surrounding an org whose job is to get more people in,

and the "OT's" volunteer. Work for nothing.

And the present time staff members work for nothing as well, yet the SO gets 10% skimmed off the top of income with no matter to payroll. LOL

as is evident on the African web blog where they are all fighting about some ideal org. LOL

People leaving because of O/W's, people leaving because of no pay and no getting a 2D or having time for other dynamics. LOL

But of course. LOL

http://backincomm.wordpress.com/2013/12/28/suspicion-distrust-life-in-a-scientology-org/#more-391

 

[lkwdblds]

That is how he initially sold it to the DC staff in 1957, but it is really just another example of his sleight of hand, saying one thing but having another intent. Hubbard supposedly has the "tech" of organizations. If the proportionate pay plan were actually intended to pay anyone a higher wage as it was presented, it would be the most dismal failure of a policy ever enacted. That was not really the intent, as evidenced by how it has been used ever since then.

What he really did is termed "risk management" or "risk transfer". One of the highest operating expenses of most organizations is payroll. In ethical organizations, the risk of meeting payroll - that is, the basic life needs of the employees - is born by the organization. If an organization can't afford to pay its staff, it closes. It doesn't expand any faster than its ability to create viable organizations that can meet payroll and other operating expenses. That is to avoid being destructive to the lives of the employees.

In Scientology, the risk of meeting the life expenses of the employees has been transferred from the organization to the employee. Basically, Hubbard was exploiting the staff so he could avoid even having to worry about meeting payroll. In the orgs, there was never a target of meeting payroll. In fact, the opposite was true - anyone who suggested perhaps we should be worrying about payroll is actually criticized as being "selfish" - as they work mega hours for free.

And then tell them that they don't produce enough to deserve to be given the basic necessities of life - as hundreds of millions pour into the organization. That was part of the con.

Once the risk of meeting the life expenses was transferred to the staff, as long as there is an organization, it will create positive cash flow for him, then later for Miscavige. It's very similar to a pyramid scheme, MLM scams use similar techniques all the time.

The person at the top reeps all the benefit, as long as they don't mind destroying the personal lives of their underlings. And he didn't. In fact, once he figured out that the staff would keep working for free, he created the Sea Org where he didn't even pretend to pay any more, and he exploited and abused even harder.

The tale of Hubbard, the proportionate pay plan, and pay in CofS in general is one of increasing exploitation.

This is a fantastic and brilliant post, Everfree. I learned a lot of new things from reading your post and I want to thank you for posting all of that valuable data! I served as Director of Disbursements at CCLA in the early 1970's and have a few thing I want to add to your excellent post.

Hubbard created S.O jobs which paid $7 or $8 a week when the S.O was found and by 1970 were paying $10 a week, barely enough for a staff member to buy toiletries. To make the story honest and complete, he also provided room, board and a uniform to wear on post.

Even with an absurdly low payroll of $10 a week (about $50 a week today' money) per employee to meet, Hubbard's orgs still were not always able to meet payroll which is an amazing fact! I served as Director of Disbursements for 2 years at CCLA. I estimate that out of 52 weeks in the year, the staff members received 1/2 pay about 6 weeks out of the year and received no pay about 2 weeks out of the year. The other 44 weeks they got their full $10. What happened to the unpaid wages?

The Orgs all kept a list of back bills, arranged in date order, which listed all valid merchant bills which were owed. Hubbard mandated that 10% of the org's weekly Gross Income be used to pay back bills and that they were to be payed in reverse date order, starting with the oldest bill. His hat write also encouraged the Director of Disbursements to keep in close contact with all creditors, letting them know that they would be paid on a dateline. In our communications to our creditors we were told to state that our org was expanding and doing very well and that their bill was important to us and would be paid very soon. The Back Bill Date Line system worked like a charm, I have to give Hubbard credit for that. All the vendors cooperated and we paid them as scheduled and they immediately allowed us to purchase more goods with them. The back bill date line system gave the Org a good reputation in our local community with the merchants we patronized! All well and good but what about those unpaid salaries? Surely, they were put on the back bill date line along with the vendor bills, right? WRONG!

If the staff got 1/2 or no pay, the unpaid portion of the staff member's pay WAS NOT PUT ON THE BACK BILLS DATELINE, instead the staff members pay was just wiped out. If a person worked hard all week and received 1/2 pay or no pay, his missing pay was completely forfeited Staff were told that we didn't make it go right and earn a reasonable Gross Income and therefore we weren't entitled to our pay. This was told to the group as a whole. Individuals in the group could have been in a condition of Power but still they would forfeit their pay. Things went so far as having producing staff members criticized for not taking full responsibility to see that all other staff member got high stats as well! What about Hubbard, he was senior to everyone, did he incur any penalty for his Org having a bad week? No he didn't; his cut was taken right off the top and if he could not be paid one particular week, the fees which were due him were taken from succeeding weeks. The official line was that the rank and file people were to be duty motivated not money motivated while LRH needed his money for research.
Lakey

 

[Gib]

That is how he initially sold it to the DC staff in 1957, but it is really just another example of his sleight of hand, saying one thing but having another intent. Hubbard supposedly has the "tech" of organizations. If the proportionate pay plan were actually intended to pay anyone a higher wage as it was presented, it would be the most dismal failure of a policy ever enacted. That was not really the intent, as evidenced by how it has been used ever since then.

Hey Eric,

we are about the same age and both got into scientology about the same time.

Anyways, I found the 1957 Proportionate Pay Plan. I've included pictures.

The paragraph that actually entraped me was entitled "Wages":

Hubbard:

Wages:

Working for a wage is one of the deadlier control mechanisms since it brings about an irresponsibility in the person for his job. Fixed wage is a means of suppressing a person into a slavery class, pegging him at no hope. This mechanism is one of the best modern society has for keeping people down. It is artificial and arbitrary and denies a person the fruits of his labor.

But, regardless of hubbard's sales pitches throughout his lectures, books, training, etc

the bottom line is, work for a loser company that produces a loser product, doesn't matter the pay plan, one gets paid shit.

But Hubbard said "join the winning team".

Me sucker, hook line and sinker.

 

[dchoiceisalwaysrs]

So how does El ron apply this push to save all the staff from being slaves. uhmm let's see. He takes off the top whatever amount he wants, then fixes the HCO worldWide and later the SO 'mismanagement' at 10% ++, and leaves the now variable left overs, often a negative amount, for the financially FREED from WAGES to grapple for. Pure stage magician workmanship.

Hubbard:

Wages:

Working for a wage is one of the deadlier control mechanisms since it brings about an irresponsibility in the person for his job. Fixed wage is a means of suppressing a person into a slavery class, pegging him at no hope. This mechanism is one of the best modern society has for keeping people down. It is artificial and arbitrary and denies a person the fruits of his labor.

Hey Eric,

we are about the same age and both got into scientology about the same time.

Anyways, I found the 1957 Proportionate Pay Plan. I've included pictures.

The paragraph that actually entraped me was entitled "Wages":



But, regardless of hubbard's sales pitches throughout his lectures, books, training, etc

the bottom line is, work for a loser company that produces a loser product, doesn't matter the pay plan, one gets paid shit.

But Hubbard said "join the winning team".

Me sucker, hook line and sinker.

 

[everfree]

Thanks all.

So how does El ron apply this push to save all the staff from being slaves. uhmm let's see. He takes off the top whatever amount he wants, then fixes the HCO worldWide and later the SO 'mismanagement' at 10% ++, and leaves the now variable left overs, often a negative amount, for the financially FREED from WAGES to grapple for. Pure stage magician workmanship.

Yep, exactly. I am much happier in the "slavery" of being paid well for my work than in the "freedom" that Hubbard offered - of working for him for free.

I think the topic of proportionate pay etc is important enough to warrant it's own thread. I'll post more about my experiences later.