Revocations in the Cattolica house, ready to implement every possible action to protect colleagues

Revocations in the Cattolica house, ready to implement every possible action to protect colleagues

Snachannel had already dealt with the revocations close to Christmas, but obviously Cattolica intends to continue its work of "species selection". Suffering a revocation is a very serious fact that has implications first psychological and human rather than legal, because an agent who is thrown into the street must first justify himself in the eyes of his family. By putting myself in the shoes of one of the revoked agents I can imagine that perhaps not even my wife would understand how it could have happened that, after years of collaboration, a company takes such a devastating measure without any warning and would be led to think that, underneath, there is something unclear: "if they have thrown you out there must be a reason". And the reason that comes to mind in these cases is the economic one. Consequently, to my embarrassed attempts to reassure her, she would reply more and more suspiciously: "by chance it will not be a question of money, have you done something stupid? You must tell me, I am your wife "and mind you that this display of distrust would weigh like a rock on the future of our relationship, even after the proven proof that I am not a thief.

And yet, dear friends, if you think about it your attitude would be quite understandable because if I didn't steal, why would a company that inspires its activity even to the "Social Doctrine of the Church and to the heritage of values ‚Äč‚Äčthat derive directly from its origin" should dirty my curriculum ruthlessly - a word from the moral point of view deriving from the Latin pietas that expresses first of all a feeling of respect for people - instead of finding a reasonable solution aimed at safeguarding together the interests of the company and those of the agent and to protect the image of the latter in the eyes of customers?

Already, the customers, try to explain it to me because until yesterday I proposed the policies of a company emphasizing the advantages and from evening to morning I find myself without the illuminated signs on the facade of the building, the entrance plates and even the posters on the walls. It is plausible to think that he put his hands in the drawer and, who knows, maybe he just took their prizes leaving them uncovered. "But those who let me do it - they would say - I go to the new agent who took the agency and pay the policies to him". Oh yes, because it is clear that there will always be an agent with fur on his stomach ready to swallow in a single bite and without any scruple the fruit of my work, letting the thin breeze of defamation spill over me. It is enough for him to sneak slyly at the morbid questions of my clients, showing with his facial expressions and the circular movements of his hands that he knows how to do it, but not wanting to talk about it because he is a "gentleman" and does not want to damage my already precarious position.

If I had been so unprepared as to have no other mandates or a structured network of horizontal collaborations with other members of Rui, I would look at the suddenly anonymous agency, with the policies crammed into the boxes waiting to be transferred by the courier to the new agency and I don't know what to say to my clients, how to justify the impossibility of offering some solution to their insurance needs. A situation that could last even for months, especially if I worked in a difficult area or if my wallet was very unbalanced on the car, or if I wasn't sufficiently digitalized, or if I didn't have some other parameter to re-enter the ideal benchmark of a new principal willing to acquire a revoked agent.

Is there a moral in all this? Yes, in reality there are two, first of all that being a sole agent is a serious mistake because operating in an exclusive regime with companies that develop multi-channels and try to marginalize the role of agents in corporate strategies is a bit like being faithful to a spouse who prefers to entertain numerous other daily reports and also says it, showing it off to the four winds. The second moral consists in taking note that when the need calls, who answers is always and only the National Union of Agents as shown by the attached letter sent by the National President Claudio Demozzi to Cattolica, so that not joining Sna is a rare form of masochism ,.

But perhaps even a third moral emerges from what has been said so far: help that Sna helps you, that is it is not correct or effective to delegate your future relying on the enthusiasm and passion of those who represent us. When it is necessary and there is no doubt that in this moment the need is there, all the agents must be ready to support any trade union action aimed at protecting the independence of the category from the overwhelming power of the companies and their ability to interfere with the freedom of exercise of our agency company.

With esteem and affection I remember Dr. Marco Lamola, with whom I shared a working life path operating in the same inspection area both within the employee organization of Assicurazioni Generali. Now, as Director of Distribution and Marketing of the Cattolica Assicurazioni group, his friend Marco has given an interview to the Giornale delle Assicurazioni, which the magazine entitled "CATTOLICA, THE SYSTEM AGREEMENT PUTS AGENTS AT THE CENTER".

I wonder if this agreement, in addition to a commission platform, a study on generational transitions and continuous training, also includes revocations: in this case the agents would be at the center, yes, alas, but of the target. http://www.edicolaonline.newspapermilano.it/newspapermilano/books/assicurazioni/2018/20181208assicurazioni/index.html#/11/

thank you, the right clarification, especially with regard to Danilo Battaglia and Salvatore Palma, who spend a lot of money protecting the members of the former Duomo Catholic Group

At the request of some readers who phoned me to ask for clarity on my statement referring to the lack of responsiveness of the two Gaas interested in the matter of revocations and agency closures, I will say that Sna always supports the Gaa members, albeit respecting the roles. And also in this case, in particular, it did not lack its own defense action of individual agents, as well as of company representatives. If anything the Syndicate tries to encourage the Gaa to do more in protecting their colleagues, just as all Snake Groups usually do with regard to its institutional activity of safeguarding the rights and interests of the category