USA "Loyalty Cards"

This is a placeholder text
Group text

by Phil Behun on 08 January 2010 - 23:01

In addition, "intelligent" members may be so inclined to decline their continued support of an organization that has no respect for their opinion or for them as an individual. And, being that this is the "General Topic" section of a public forum (sorry, I know a lot of the Shepherd folk feel that this is their house), and not a "Member's Only" forum sponsored by USCA, I believe that Eric (sorry Bob) and I have just as much right as the next fella to voice our continued opinion and disgust for the current administration of the "Our Way Over All Society".

by Pat Relton on 09 January 2010 - 00:01

So KIM GASH and Eric Eisenberg

If WDA also makes you do arbitration than WDA has a loyalty card to KIM GASH is a executive in consideration of WDA

by Bob McKown on 09 January 2010 - 00:01

No need to apologize Phil, I just consider the source. Bitch away my friend.

The phones are down in the office till January 11th due to construction it,s posted on USA,s web site unless Phil you think it is a conspiracy ?.

by Phil Behun on 09 January 2010 - 00:01

No kidding, really???? The voice mail for the phone service that the "home office" uses is down??? I sure hope they get a credit for the week's worth of downtime. Maybe that's why they couldn't answer my E-mails that the website says were still available or why they said that Faxes were also still available. Don't Faxes run through the phone lines Bob? If the phone lines were down how come 'da Faxes? Conspiracy? Nah, but I will be placing a call to Jesse Ventura just in case.

by Eric Eisenberg on 09 January 2010 - 01:01

The issue is not the arbitration clause it is the severe limit put on awards. People should have the ability to have recourse against the executive board . Members of this organization spend lots of time and money training and competing to simply be bullied by an executive board who does not follow there own rules and regulations. If the executive board followed the rules and regulations of their own organization there probably wouldn't be people threatening suits. To say this is SOP is bull shit! Arbitration clauses might be popular but not ones which limit damages to $60.00. A $60.00 limit gives the executive board dictatorial power! The executive board doesn't have to follow any rules or bylaws anyone who disagrees with them will be given $60.00 and told to hit the road. So those of you trouble makers who think you will make change will simply get your $60.00 back and be kicked out of the executive boards club.

To "bgstout" I never said WDA was or wasn't a great organization I have simply opposed the bylaw changes which limit my freedoms to do as I choose with my dog. I also oppose allowing the executive board to do as they please with no recourse via binding arbitration which limits damages to your membership fees.

by Bob McKown on 09 January 2010 - 02:01

What exactley is USA going to do to me to make me say I want a million dollars? I,m a dullard for sure but that to is okay. The only real people getting there shorts in a bunch are the few folks who got cut off from 2 attempts at the world team? Come on Eric this is the bottom line of it all. This is a pissing match and i,m not playing...I hope everything works out for all those who go WDA.

by K9Sport on 09 January 2010 - 02:01

I am 100% A-OK with a binding arbitration agreement... what I''m ***NOT** OK with, is the USA EB amending the bylaw as passed, to include a limit on award. The 2 points of note are that 1) They did not follow their very own policy and did not submit the change to the delegates for a VOTE. They took it upon themselves to institute a bylaw amendment without following proper channels (or any channels at all for that matter) which questions the integrity of the binding arbitration altogether, which can subsequently leave the organization open to litigation challenging the integrity of the bylaw, and 2) When you attempt to SEVERELY limit awards you remove accountability in its ENTIRETY, and when that happens the path to corruption is well paved.

Nia, you're an intelligent woman and rumor has it you have some law experience, so I KNOW YOU KNOW that just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it wont. USA is asking you to give them a blank check and they're not willing to do the same. It costs THOUSANDS of dollars to qualify for a world team.... How nice that USA has offered to give you back your $60 if you meet the qualifications but they don't want you on the team. If USA made good business decisions (key words BUSINESS DECISIONS), then a binding arbitration agreement without limits would be good business practice FOR ALL INVOLVED!

Oh... and BTW...... WDA did it the RIGHT way.... they have a binding arbitration agreement without the $60 limit, one that is fair for all parties involved. In case you're interested in passing on the full facts here is the WDA policy:

I hereby request formal admission to the GSDCA-WDA, Inc. and if accepted to membership, agree to be bound by its Articles, Bylaws, Regulations and Conditions as they may now exist or may be subsequently adopted.
AGREEMENT As a condition of membership in the German Shepherd Dog Club of America-Working Dog Association, Inc., (hereinafter “WDA”) the undersigned member agrees that for any cause of action, controversy or claim arising out of or related to membership in the WDA, or any cause of action, controversy or claim arising out of or related to the entry, exhibition or attendance including but not limited to the qualifications of the particular entry at an event sponsored or held by the WDA, or as to the construction, interpretation or effect of this agreement, or any other issue arising from the administration of the rules, regulations, procedures and guidelines, or bylaws of the WDA, shall, unless otherwise prohibited by law, be settled by arbitration in Denver, Colorado, pursuant to the rules and regulations of the American Arbitration Association then in effect. Each party shall select one arbitrator from a list of arbitrators in Denver, Colorado, and a third arbitrator shall be selected by the two chosen by the parties. The costs of arbitration shall be shared equally by the parties unless the panel of arbitrators shall otherwise determine. Notwithstanding the preceding, prior to arbitration of the cause of action, controversy or claim, all published rules, regulations, procedures and guidelines, including the bylaws, of the WDA shall first be followed.

Laurie

by K9Sport on 09 January 2010 - 03:01

Hey Bob,

As it's written, USA can decide that they don't like your posts on the PDB and ban you for life, are you going to spend the money to arbitrate knowing that the most you'll get is your $60 back? See how that works?

I get that you support the binding arbitration agreement, and I RESPECT your right to support it, but this is about MUCH more than world team slots.......
Laurie

by MaliGirl on 09 January 2010 - 03:01

Gotta disagree with the statement "the only real people getting there shorts in a bunch are the few folks who got cut off from two attempts at the world team". Up until about 7 months ago.....I did not even have a GSD...but have always supported UScA in membership dues, trophy donations for National/Regionals Events and donations to the WUSV team. I could have just as easily entered a trial with my AWMA membership (AWDF organization) and not joined UScA...but I really thought it was a good organization and wanted to support it and the general membership. The Grewe bylaw change and the "Loyalty Card" has me contemplating why I should support an organization that refuses to "hear" its general membership or its delegates. I can't help but wonder what the next bylaw will be.....thank you very much for your support ($$$$$) throughout the years... Rott, Dobe, Mal etc handlers, but we are now going to be an exclusive GSD organization - out in the cold you go.

I still don't understand why a delegate, who has NEVER held dual memberships (UScA and WDA), was not permitted to be heard...instead talked over, as someone already pointed out. Chico Stanford was our clubs delegate.....so not only was it a slap in the face to a man that has always been "loyal" to UScA....it was a slap in the face to each of our club members. The EB comes back an hour later then what was stated when they left......and NOW they don't have time for people to be heard????

I actually don't have a problem with the "arbitration clause" on the loyalty card.......I DO have a problem with the "competing organization" part. It turns my stomach to actually see such a statement in print - a working dog organization of the United States telling its membership that it cannot belong to another working dog organization in the United States. If the intent was to stop the "big names" from having two shots at the WUSV then make a bylaw that deals specifically with that......instead of all this "conflict of interest" bs and "for the good of the breed". One of these days.....probably not in my lifetime....I'm hoping the dog organizations of this great country (USA) will realize that we DO NOT need to imitate, be "ruled" by nor seek approval from Germans or Germany.

by eichenluft on 09 January 2010 - 03:01

Chico Stanford has never held WDA membership? Isn't WDA membership required to compete at WDA Nationals? Chico has never competed at WDA Nationals? Sure he has.

He's not the only delegate who was obviously affiliated with WDA, who was shut down at the GBM. What a shame, all of this crap. UScA going down the toilet, not even allowing delegates to speak their mind, unless they were speaking in favor of the "amendment" I guess.

Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top

USA "Loyalty Cards" - Page 6

Pedigree Database