Cause for active tuning Associates to be in an uproar!

[Israel Stein]

At 07:59 AM 9/3/2006, Phil Ryan wrote:

>In our region, we were told the organization is looking for more 
>"serious" associates, ones that would "shut up and take the 
>tests."(as someone has just put it).  I think it is discrimination 
>for the organization to use the dues of  associates to promote 
>another class of membership and additionally require that we put 
>down our own classification.  It's time that associates had some say 
>in the governance of the organization.

Actually, Phil, your dues are used to provide an awful lot of 
materials, services, classes, and other aid for Associates to meet 
the test of minimal standard of competence required for the PTG to 
endorse your skills to the public (which RPT's have no use for). If 
you take advantage of those - you too can get the PTG endorsement of 
your skills that a PTG-generated on-line listing provides, simply by 
taking advantage of those services and taking the damned test. As 
long as you refuse to do so, any perceived differential in level of 
services is a result of your own choice - and is perfectly legal.

If you check around, you will not find any organization that provides 
a listing of its members to the public without either requiring some 
sort of credential - such as a degree, certification, or other 
professional credential; or, alternately, without providing a 
disclaimer that a listing does not constitute an endorsement of the 
member's skills. It could be a matter of liability - such a listing 
can be taken by a consumer to be an endorsement of a listee's skills, 
and the organization can be held liable for not exercising due 
diligence in ascertaining such skills before providing such an endorsement.

Currently, the PTG's legal behind is covered: it provides to the 
public only a listing of those members who have demonstrated a basic 
level of skills by acquiring a credential (RPT) , and it also 
requires - in places where the names of non-credentialed members may 
be revealed to the public - a disclaimer that, in a very 
non-inflammatory way, lets the public know that the PTG does not make 
any representations as to the skill level of Associate members.

So you can create all the uproars among Associates that you wish, but 
the PTG is not going to expose itself to legal liability for the sake 
of people who are not willing to take the simple step of 
demonstrating a basic level of professional skills. And it has all 
the legal right to do so, under the US Uniform Commercial Code and US 
Ant-Trust legislation. And yes, some of these Associates may have a 
high level of skills. But in my over 20 years in this business (all 
of them as an RPT, by the way - I learned my basic skills in school, 
BEFORE I started charging people for my services) I have come across 
plenty others who have no skills at all, and are essentially fleecing 
their clients. So it's very simple - if a member is not willing to 
demonstrate in an objective way (that's a US anti-trust law 
requirement - objectivity) that he/she possesses some level of skill, 
the PTG cannot - due to liability concerns - endorse such a member's 
skills to the public (whether explicitly or by implication.) And all 
those things that you got your bloomers all in an uproar about are - 
in fact - such a tacit endorsement.

Israel Stein