Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
Posted by Pipeliner: Quote:quote:So, as you say Troll, RAO Units should not be happy with this limp slap on the writs by the IFA - "we are reassured that it wont happen again" - its too late IFA , it has happened and you (IFA) have no idea how long it has been going on for either !!!!!!!!!!
Yet again, a demand for stronger action - without any concrete proposals.
So what, specifically, do you think the IFA should have done? Strike the company off a list that it isn't on? Send round some heavies with baseball bats? Please make an actual suggestion, preferably one that lies within the powers of the IFA under the RAO rules.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2005
Let me ask you, 1 man; you had paid sums of money and spent a lot of time and effort to ensure that your commercial organisation was of an acceptable professional standard and therefore permitted to use a kite mark on your stationary and guidance and standards as an assurance of quality to your client, as well as a high degree of direction and competence to your staff , when another organisation appears using these colours of quality and standard without putting in time, money and effort, would you feel cheated and the nature of the all you had strived to achieve with the IFA completely devalued?
In fact, you have been cheated.
Personally, I believe that the IFA should have done more (legal mitigation) and I also believe that bona fide member organisations should be outraged and demanding more sanctions.
1 man, are you a member of the IFA?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
However... adn I remind people that BAJR is not a witch-hunter -
The IFA took appropriate action... the incident was reported, acted on and dealt with. That is good enough for me... and I am a member. } 
It is better to act softly than to put boots in... I have found it always works, where the boot in the groin, only results in friction and a loss of any ability to talk. You can tell I am goind down the arbitration line, where by talking you can achieve a whole lot more that a kickin'.
If I assured you that BAJR is aware of the whole story, and is happy.. would that help? :face-thinks:
Another day another WSI?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2005
THe IFA has acted by placing a blunt message onto its website (in the public domain!) as noted earlier on this thread. As an IFA member I think that this is an appropiate response. As the unit in question is not an RAO the only other action would be through the courts which would be (very) expensive and the IFA would have to proove malicous intent on behalf of the unit in question (which is hard to see on the facts as presented) and even if so prooven the IFA may not recoup its legal costs - and would end up with the same result i.e. the unit in question promising not to do it again. It is hard to see what other actions are possible or indeed plausible?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
There seems to be an expectation that the IFA has the powers to do allsorts of things which they are not really able to do. If there is a question of legality - as there may be in this case I unsure why the IFA and other dont just pass the infomation on to the appropriate agency and let them investigate and take inappropriate action.
In this case their may a been a breach of advertising rules and thus the appropriate people are trading standards.
Peter
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
Quote:quote:1 man, are you a member of the IFA?
Yes, I am both a member of the IFA and a responsible person in an RAO. I do feel cheated - but by the unit in question, not by the IFA.
Whether or not you think that the unit's misdeeds merited stronger sanctions, the point here is not 'what should the IFA have done?' so much as 'what else was available for them to do?'. The unit is not an RAO - so they can't take disciplinary action through the RAO scheme. Legal action would be very risky and expensive for the IFA, and probably out of proportion to the severity of the offence.
As a member, I might feel cheated by the IFA if they spent some of my subscription money on pursuing legal action on this point.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2005
So, 1 man, you feel cheated.
I answered your question with a possible solution and one that may knock the stuffing out of the unit and send a message to anyone else not to do it. Its two principles of legal punishment; retribution and example.
Lets hope it doesn't happen again, by anyone.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
As I have said on a few occasions... where would that get us?
I agree that this was a serious incident... one that was dealt with proportianate to the issue. To pursue and 'knock the stuffing' out of the unit would have a detrimental effect on archaeology. I prefer the gentle persausion variety.... I feel more able to talk to Unit managers on a persoanl and reasonable level rather than facing them across a legal battle.
I know it won't happen again... why? Because if it does.. then it will be noted, reported and there will be no excuse for it.
OK, so public execution has its benefits, but in reality, (and boy have I learned about reality over the past 6 years of BAJR, and 2 years of Hotline) fight the battles that are worth fighting, reason where reason can win, and only as a very very last resort should legal action be taken... its not nice, its not pretty and it has reprecutions that lasts years and affects scores of people.
Me I go for arbitration.
Believe me, that is not the soft option, it is so hard it has nearly killed me... it is responsible though, it is the best way (in my humble opinion IMHO) to operate... the angry kick in the goolies from BAJR is a thing of the past... Yes I have a strange but wonderful mandate built on trust, that allows me to talk, resolve and get on....
I would point people to a more serious issue.... look at the Thread.. Taking responsibility http://www.bajr.org/bajrforum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=783
Another day another WSI?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2005
Ok, there have been some useful comments with regard to Troll's points and my own. Sorry for the delay in replying
Yes, at least the IFA have actually made a statement and apparently they have done as much as they can with the unit in question sseing as this unit is not an RAO and therefore not directly connected to the IFA.
Well then, what about the IFA dealing the MIFA who is supposed to be in charge of the unit in question, as surely that individual must have known what was going on with the paperwork ? What would be the procedure?
I thank Sparky for defending the point that I had made and also, like hime and Troll too, still remain concerned that the value of being an RAO has possibly been devalued by this unit using the IFA RAO Logo when it was not entitled to do so.
This issue, for me anyway, still requires further investiagtion, as I find it hard to believe that it would be a one off incident.
But hey ....as Mr Hosty says ...Another day etc etc :face-approve:
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
Which is also why ... in a meeting today with the IFA, I will be bringing up a valid point that the devaluation of RAO (as a badge of quality) is dangersously close.
If a non RAO is publicly admonished, but some RAOs and MIFAs have private wristslaps, then the balance is wrong. Of course, we only hear about the 'issues' - it can be easy to forget about all the good things that happen and also the realities of running a company in todays enviroment.
powder dry folks, keep yer powder dry..... and win the war even if it means letting some battles go.
Another day another WSI?
|
