This is a placeholder text
Group text
by VomMarischal on 08 January 2010 - 20:01
Bob...it's ok if we bitch once in a while. Just ignore us.
by Phil Behun on 08 January 2010 - 20:01
I would have loved to have spoken at the National meeting but was NOT ALLOWED to because I was not a "delegate". So, being a dues paying member in good standing, basically does nothing for you other than it gives you a copy of a magazine (that has also gone downhill from what it used to be). Using the excuse that there were too many people in attendance to allow free speech is a feeble excuse at best as there were probably less than 100 people in the room. Probably could have gotten everyone in to speak at least twice if the president didn't take a 2 hour lunch instead of the scheduled 1 hour break. As for "just doing it", I am currently trying, but as the USCA office's phones have been off all week and are not answered by voice mail and no one has answered my e-mails, I'll just have to wait until sometime next week during the business hours of 8-4 CST,,,,oh snap, it's 2:33, guess I did try between 8-4. Maybe since you are such a devoted member, you can get to them on the "Bob-o-phone" and have them cut me a check. Tell them my membership number is #000036.
by Bob McKown on 08 January 2010 - 20:01
Bitcing is good for the soul my dear and always allowed, I personnelly think it,s a load of shit my self what USA has done I think it will bite them in the ass,but USA has also been a good orginization because of the people who work and train and raise there dogs. These are the people who,s responsibility it will be to right this ship.
Let all the name folks piss and whine and try to convonce us all it,s a wasted cause because there the ones who have brought the problem about now we will have to fix it.
Bob o phone...thats pretty good Phil is that like the bat phone?
by VomMarischal on 08 January 2010 - 20:01
We screwed up when we lost our votes.
by Phil Behun on 08 January 2010 - 20:01
Yep, and gave up your rights to "your day in court" http://germanshepherddog.com/documents/memberrCardExample.pdf
by Mystere on 08 January 2010 - 21:01
I think this bears repeating, as there seems to be a lot of "created" confusion over the arbitration issue, a true "tempest in a teapot." Basically, if we did not have a couple of bastards whose sportsmanship and sportsmanlike conduct could not bear the slightest scrutiny threatening to sue everytime someone called bullshit on their actions, there would have been no need to have an arbitration clause. However, $25k in legal fees, at least in part, to address the actions and threats of those same bastards led the need for an arbitration clause. Such clauses are not the least bit unusual in organizations in this litigation-crazy society. They are very nearly standard operating procedure in this country at this point. USA is simply (finally) catching up on the way businesses are run in a litigation-happy society.
To my knowledge, the only USA members who have ever actually sued USA, are a judge whose license was revoked (or there was a threat to revoke, I can't quite recall,now) after a series of incidents, an officer who was (inaccurately?) accused of theft of USA funds by another officer, and a competitor who was not allowed on the team several years ago, because of unsportsmanlike conduct.
Another instance I recall was a photographer who threatened to sue USA, unless USA agreed to allow that individual to be the "official photographer" for all national events for ten years. (That conduct is called extortion, by the way). The photographer also threatened to sue a club hosting a national event that year, because the club contracted with someone else as the "official photographer." The threats did not fly. USA refused, the club refused , no suits were ever filed, and the photographer had to move along with his idle threats.
Bottom-line: Let's face it: What actual tortious or contractual conduct is USA likely to engage in against any member providing grounds to sue? This arbitration agreement has about as much impact on any given USA member as an insurance policy against being hit by fragments of the Mars--NOT likely to ever be an issue.
While I have issues with the arbitration provision to be signed, as written, I also don't see where USA is likely to give me actual grounds or reasons to sue, either, particularly given the background. I also have absolutely NO issues with the concept of an agreement to arbitrate disputes. (I agree that the limitation is bs)
The actions of a couple of members alone (Hell, even one member!!), can lead to any organization incurring massive legal expenses, however unfounded a member's accusations or threats to sue may be. Anyone can threaten legal action, leading to an organization needing to consult with legal counsel and thereby incurr legal expenses, however baseless the member's actions may be.
Bottom line: Any fool can, and probably will, sue you (or an organization) or threaten to do so, for anything, well-based assertions or groundless foo-hah. It may still cost you money anyway. Ergo, the move by many organizations and clubs to arbitration agreements.
To my knowledge, the only USA members who have ever actually sued USA, are a judge whose license was revoked (or there was a threat to revoke, I can't quite recall,now) after a series of incidents, an officer who was (inaccurately?) accused of theft of USA funds by another officer, and a competitor who was not allowed on the team several years ago, because of unsportsmanlike conduct.
Another instance I recall was a photographer who threatened to sue USA, unless USA agreed to allow that individual to be the "official photographer" for all national events for ten years. (That conduct is called extortion, by the way). The photographer also threatened to sue a club hosting a national event that year, because the club contracted with someone else as the "official photographer." The threats did not fly. USA refused, the club refused , no suits were ever filed, and the photographer had to move along with his idle threats.
Bottom-line: Let's face it: What actual tortious or contractual conduct is USA likely to engage in against any member providing grounds to sue? This arbitration agreement has about as much impact on any given USA member as an insurance policy against being hit by fragments of the Mars--NOT likely to ever be an issue.
While I have issues with the arbitration provision to be signed, as written, I also don't see where USA is likely to give me actual grounds or reasons to sue, either, particularly given the background. I also have absolutely NO issues with the concept of an agreement to arbitrate disputes. (I agree that the limitation is bs)
The actions of a couple of members alone (Hell, even one member!!), can lead to any organization incurring massive legal expenses, however unfounded a member's accusations or threats to sue may be. Anyone can threaten legal action, leading to an organization needing to consult with legal counsel and thereby incurr legal expenses, however baseless the member's actions may be.
Bottom line: Any fool can, and probably will, sue you (or an organization) or threaten to do so, for anything, well-based assertions or groundless foo-hah. It may still cost you money anyway. Ergo, the move by many organizations and clubs to arbitration agreements.
by Mystere on 08 January 2010 - 21:01
I forgot to mention....WDA also has an arbitration agreement that members must sign and renew each year.
by Phil Behun on 08 January 2010 - 22:01
The classic "because everyone else gets away with it, why can't I" mentality. So, what you're trying to tell me is, no case will be taken into consideration on it's own merit, they will all be lumped in together and what we say goes,,,,,,,,,always. Ahhh, due process at work.
by Mystere on 08 January 2010 - 23:01
I said precisely what I intended to say: Arbitration is SOP in organizations in the United States, including WDA.
Rather than bitching and pissing on the Internet about an arbitration provision, intelligent members might be inclined to find out whether the provision is even cognizable in their state. Those who are not members, or have decided to resign their membership, really no longer have any interest in it, so shouldn't be bitching and moaning, but of course they will continue to bitch and moan, until something else comes along...
Rather than bitching and pissing on the Internet about an arbitration provision, intelligent members might be inclined to find out whether the provision is even cognizable in their state. Those who are not members, or have decided to resign their membership, really no longer have any interest in it, so shouldn't be bitching and moaning, but of course they will continue to bitch and moan, until something else comes along...
by Phil Behun on 08 January 2010 - 23:01
Why would you care about what's going on in the WDA or what policies they follow? Personally, I don't care what's SOP in other organizations, USCA is the one being questioned here. USCA is the one that I have supported financially and physically for quite a few years now and USCA is the one that could give a rat's a#@ about what I, or others have to say. I have supported USCA since the early 90's even though I do not have German Shepherd Dogs, but could I even give an opinion at the National meeting? No, and if you tried to speak and were not a delegate, or if you were also a WDA member, Lyle would get up off of his throne and remove the microphone from your hand physically, or in Chico Stanford's case, just talk right over you and act as if you didn't exist. But I guess that since it's SOP, that makes it right. Sorry, people who treat other people that way are not ones I wish to be associated with, my mother raised me differently. And, if I could get someone at the exalted "home office" to answer my phone calls or E-mails, I would ask formally for the return of my support.
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top