Doctors have the American Medical Association; lawyers are represented by the American Bar Association, car dealers, teachers, religions, and even countries have organized representation to promote their best interests to the public and government. Art and antiques dealers, one can categorically say, do not have any form of an umbrella organization that can advocate for its interests.
The many organizations that do attempt to be representatives of the industry are narrow in focus and small in membership. Whether it is the Art and Antiques Dealer’s League of America (AADLA), Antiques Dealers’ Association of American (ADA), National Antiques & Art Dealers Association of American (NAADAA), or the various state and local associations, they all have limited membership, finances, and interests. Individually they are just groups that attempt to create their own exclusivity of membership and can’t look at industry issues, be it a simple standard form of invoice or other business documents that have dealer and customer interests in mind; how about the larger purpose of the public’s image of dealers?
It is clear to me how dealers in general have gone in decline at the expense of the auctioneers’ success, with their strong public representation. The Sotheby’s/Christie’s duopoly is no match for any of these dealer organizations. Their achievements to further their goals and agenda can be attributed to the skillful use of public relations, legal, and political connections. Clearly, the watershed incident of dealer submission to these auctioneers happened in the late 1970s, when they imposed the buyer’s premium and dealers (both English and American) blinked in their fight to prohibit it. The dealer “organizations” back then had no bite or bark. Peter Spira, Sotheby’s chief financial officer at that time gives a good account of that period in his book “Ladders and Snakes”
This industry does have thousands, dare I say potentially millions of potential members if you were to also include collectors, who also have an interest in what we do. But it is the dealers who, if united under one inclusive organization, could create a financially strong and robust force to fashion standards for industry conduct and an agenda for public awareness. Today, the scope of being a “dealer” is wide and varied; the dealer in multi-million dollar art, the eBay power dealer, the small antiques shop owner, or the dealer who only exhibits at shows wants nothing more than to increase his sales and burnish his image as a businessman. We are all united in this industry by being resellers of items that have added value from our knowledge and experience. It’s no different for the individual lawyer who hangs out his shingle or the several hundred plus member law firm; the American Bar Association has their back.
The concept of a united and focused art, antiques and design dealer umbrella organization can and will produce results; doing nothing will continue this uninterrupted trend of more difficulty and undue stress to survive in an already challenging economic environment. Dealers must first understand that they do have the power to protect and expand their interests, but only as a united force, and with professional advocates. Individual dealers and small volunteer organizations can’t raise public and political awareness. There is strength in numbers and the time is now.
Lewis
Janet
July 23, 2013
The professional organizations which are successful in establishing standards and promoting their profession all have licensing requirements. It seems to me given the vast variety of objects considered antique, licensing would be impossible. Further apart from policing their profession none of these organizations has a great impact on the world at large.
Colin Boone
July 23, 2013
I agree with Janet, although this post does leave much room for debate. I personally think that only specific ‘organizations’ could work, rather than there being just one to govern all areas of vintage objects. A competent ‘expert’ in porcelain for example would be of no benefit at all in other areas. It can also be said, than many of these ‘so-called’ experts and ‘professional organizations’ are nothing more than a bunch of ‘know-it all’s’ who quite often will not accept that just like anybody else, they are not 100% correct all of time and that their ‘professionalism’ is only an opinion…
Janet
July 23, 2013
Colin as the entire debacle with Galfira Rosales proves.
July 23, 2013
This is a US problem.
Nothing was ever achieved by doing nothing and nothing was ever achieved by saying its too difficult.
It was by achieving the difficult & impossible that has made the USA so powerful . Janet’s reply is perhaps rather defeatist.
Surely, if professional organizations are very acceptable in the UK, Europe and much of the rest of the world then why not the USA ?
Such organizations work exceptionally well and protect both the dealer & the buying public. Subscription fees are fair, can be set against tax. Other benefits such as cheap insurance, legal advice etc. are also often offered as well as nationally & internationally showcasing of members wares. Indeed I suspect that most UK and European dealers following AAD and reading this article are themselves members of such organizations.
I wish ‘The Rumbler’ every success.
Tom Higginson
( LAPADA member & proud of it !)
Janet
July 23, 2013
Tom, not defeatist, but rather more understanding of the various levels of authority in the United States. I know you are not unfamiliar with the United States, but our jurisdictional structure and our legal system still differ greatly from yours. In addition, a professional organization only has jurisdiction over its members and without providing a huge incentive for membership like the professional licensing organizations, there is no reason for dealers to join.
Robert
July 23, 2013
Appraisers seem to do well with their certification requirements and obviously handle a wide range of work. What makes dealers so different?
Janet
July 23, 2013
Appraisers can or cannot be licensed and if they are licensed they are licensed only in those areas for which they have passed a test. Most appraisers in the US aren’t licensed they are certified as experts in a court of law.
Tom Higginson
July 23, 2013
Janet.
I take back the word defeatist, my genuine apology………. My remark was not intended to be personal. Sorry.
I certainly think that this is a US problem only to be addressed by the US trade yourselves. However yes I do have some experience of trading within the USA (not in the antique trade) and of the jurisdictional structure at both Federal & State levels.
Lewis is quite correct however. If other trades & professional groups can organize themselves then why not the Art & Antiques trade ?
Anything can be done if a few are willing to take a lead and nothing is without risk, hard work and vision. The ‘lets do it ‘ attitude is something the people of America have in abundance so why no give it a try ? What have you got to lose ?
Tom
Colin Boone
July 23, 2013
…. Absolutely Tom. I could not agree with you more. One only needs to see the wide variety of organizations which are predominantly run & managed by collectors of their own desired field, to see that success and or status does not have to mean Masters Degree’s under ones belt, and that these various sites are vital, whilst also serving as ‘accurate’ informative & helpful advice that is free for all.. ‘Studying’ antiques as an examination topic does not bring experience.
I am sure that if a few are willing to give things a try, then just like you say Tom, there is truly nothing to lose and that those who choose to become affiliated within USA will also be providing a like-minded service, which can only be a good thing.
janet
July 23, 2013
I should also mention there are professional organizations which have meaning to collectors such as the organization for poster dealers. Perhaps we are not as disorganized as one might expect.
Robert
July 24, 2013
The common complaint though is that dealer organizations do little beyond organizing fairs.
Julian
July 24, 2013
The current Trade associations have failed if they ever seriously tried to raise standards in the Trade and this can only be done by a body which is not a Trade association and is either backed by Statute which the Government will not give the Parliamentary time for as low political priority, or could be an organisation to which dealers etc signed up and financed.
The Trade Associations should be looking after their members and not the public.
Robert
July 24, 2013
Yes, on option B.
Tom Higginson
July 24, 2013
That is not the experience of the CINOA affiliated trade organizations or their members in the UK & Europe, Julian.
Elliot Lee
July 24, 2013
The below is a great story and a great example of an association looking after their members. Thought you might like to take read Tom.
Tom Higginson
July 24, 2013
Thank you Elliot. That link alone proves my point better than I could.
Now, imagine the power of a single, or maybe only a couple, of large US National Associations similar to the ones in Europe. Think of the pressure it could put on policy makers & on the large auction houses. Think of the buying power it would exert on Insurance companies, legal providers & credit charges, etc. for its members.
The lone cowboy is a romantic figure in the movies but into days modern world going it alone is very hard & very, very lonely.
Lewis Baer is absolutely right on this one and I wish him every success……..
Janet
July 24, 2013
The point of trade association’s here is to limit the effect of governmental policy makers. To be perfectly blunt, Tom, I love visiting Europe, but I’m am delighted the US is not like Europe and I hope to hell it never becomes Europe.
Tom Higginson
July 24, 2013
No one is suggesting that the US copies Europe Janet, least of all me.
I do suggest that the US trade looks at all the possibilities and then comes up with an idea bigger & better than the UK & Europe.
The big sharks eat the little fish in the corporate world – become a shark, its safer.
I simply ask you all again ‘ What have any of you to lose’ by following Lewis Baer’s suggestion and to look honestly at all that you might gain. Do not close your eyes to possibilities .
Janet
July 24, 2013
Independence. If I wanted the corporate world I could have stayed in it with great success. I have no intention of devoting any energy to anything without a huge pay off for me. I don’t have time to devote to pie in the sky projects. Time is money.
Just another American cowboy, here. Now I have to saddle up and get to work.
Robert
July 24, 2013
You do see the common thought here…. ‘me’, which is an issue. Conservative politics. Regardless, as with all else, some sign on, some do not.
Janet
July 24, 2013
Yes, Robert the entrepreneurial spirit. No apology for that.
July 25, 2013
It occurs to me that, if there is a body set up to represent one group of people or another group of people, then necessarily it is also an arbiter as to who should be in that group of people. Ladies, gentlemen and sentient chairs, that way fascism, or at least an equivalent imbecilism, lies.
Look at me (‘though not too long or you might ruin your eyesight): I’m an artist, artiste, writer, composer, management consultant and general renaissance being. Now, some might look at the undeniable lack of an education in either composition, art, or renaissance-being-ness, and think me unfit to darken the shoes of those who have such pieces of paper. Others might quite reasonably assume that were I to hold certificates in all my activities I might have more degrees than a semi-circle and (at an extremely tight 2 years each), would be approaching my 400th birthday.
While I don’t begrudge those whose rocks are dashed against the coppices of academe to good effect their glory in achievement, I do rather take issue with the idea that unless you’ve been regularly harrassed by 5 pedagogues in at least 3 years of your life you’re not worth the paper you’re written on. And while there are those organisations which take a far less swivel-eyed view when it comes to membership criteria, that I have heard some countries not allow one to practice with anything approaching the peace such practice necessitates for want of a mortar-board-throwing experience or six, I fear such a body would likewise discriminate where none is merited. Indeed, with such organisations, merit would be the last thing on their minds…
Janet
July 25, 2013
I have been regularly harassed by at least 5 pedagogues for 7 years and I absolutely agree with you. I prefer anarchy to paper credential tyranny.
July 26, 2013
You have my condolences.
Lawrence Klepper
July 26, 2013
Somewhere above it says American artists aren’t organized. See …………>
by Alexis Clements on July 22, 2013
Tom Higginson
July 26, 2013
Andrew, please !
For us obviously less multi-talented, non-renaissance & normal mortals. Not versed in the Welsh bardic tradition of using long winded retoric & In a few simple plain English words , please explain what the hell you are talking about.
Have you actually read & digested Lewis Baer’s article ?
Are you really suggesting that the very respectable American Associations that he names together with the hundreds, nay thousands, of similar trade organizations worldwide are steeped in fascism & imbecilism ?
I’m a member of three such associations, one relating to the antique trade & two others non-related – am I a fascist imbecile ?
Where is there any mention about certificates or degrees being needed to be a member of the type of association Lewis is advocating ?
Have you ( or Janet ) actually read any of the simple requirements of membership of say BADA or LAPADA or indeed and of the worldwide associations affiliated to CINOA ?
Have you read and understood the link posted above (24th July) by Elliott Lee and if so what is your objection ?
Answers in simple English please Andrew.
Mr Editor…
Lewis Baer is a very long established, experienced and well respected dealer in the USA and a regular contributor to AAD I do not always agree with his views regarding the auction houses but I will always defend his right to say them.
He has made a very valid suggestion which is worthy of serious & intelligent debate within the US art & antique trade . To decry such a suggestion out of hand, without thought or common sense does nobody any credit, least of all readers of this online blog.
Lewis Baer….
How about sticking up for yourself & fighting your corner ? This is an American issue so why am I fighting your battle for you. Your silence is deafening !
Scottie…..
Beam my up please… Life is too short for this lunacy
July 26, 2013
Calm down, dear.
I write for a number of reasons – to inform, yes, but then given I’m more coracle than Oracle, I have to temper my language with “I believe” and “may” and “perhaps”. As for the rest – well, nobody’s going to read what I write if I don’t somehow entertain as well, and my dear sir if your temperament is not for such entertainment may I suggest you skip merrily by and take your barbed comments with you?
As for whether I have read the piece, and all those other things to which you’ve alluded – as you say, life’s too short to study these things in detail and not get paid for it. But I do have the right, do I not, of making a comment based on an impression of the overall shape of the piece, as I have done. Had I not read the piece at all and then proceded to take it apart item by item, or perhaps looked at each item without context and then missed the point, then maybe you would have a point. But as I say, my comment consisted merely of what occurred to me, and that should be seen as a caveat for the contention rather than as an outright opposition.
Tom Higginson
July 26, 2013
In other words, Self hype rules and to hell with everyone else !
Sarah Ann Filler
July 26, 2013
It appears that the assumption has been made that ‘qualifications’ as defined by some sort of academic/scholarly measure is being suggested here. I read this idea as an attempt to standardize behaviors above all else, which the trade, the material and market could benefit from. Surely it is possible to organize to some degree in hopes of making the business more inviting, safe and robust – particularly when there are so many unresolved issues which continue to exist.
Lawrence Klepper
July 26, 2013
Those with degrees claim they are needed, those without degrees say they are unnecessary. The truth lies somewhere in between.
July 27, 2013
Thing with a degree is that, except in a few cases, the subject is more-or-less irrelevant.
While it’s handy for a medical practitioner to be actually qualified for the work he does, the degree is mostly an attestation of the ability to research. Thus, while the subject is germane to someone looking to work in the field to which it pertains, many degree holders end up in occupations entirely unrelated to their field of study. But, if you have the ability and the proven practice of finding out that which you need to know, to the required depth – be it graduate or post-graduate – then you can get into any field for which a specific qualification is not a necessity.
Janet
July 27, 2013
Tom, one thing leads to another, particularly since all the current associations do in some way require some attestation about the applicants’ expertise and experience. This can be a real hardship since in this new world we live in no one knows a damn thing about anything. The question of degrees comes from the new world of American academia which is viewed by the general population as a vocational school preparing students for specific jobs which they are ill prepared to take and which they don’t want anyway. The word professional has become meaningless since even your hairdresser is a professional. An undergraduate degree means the holder did nothing criminal and a doctorate means you had nothing better to do. And, yet here we are nattering about something so totally unimportant as a trade organization. And then there is Robert who attributes any deviation from his world view as political.Priceless.
Robert
July 27, 2013
Such a negative view of everything Janet.
Robert
July 26, 2013
That’s not true though Lawrence. Janet (above) has a degree. She simply doesn’t like the idea of standardization. It ruffles the political feathers of some and they believe that they will suffer from its use.
Janet
July 26, 2013
Standardization is the definition of mediocrity
Robert
July 27, 2013
So, would you not have a problem with fakes, frauds, reproductions, etc because we are speaking of behaviors here.
Lawrence Klepper
July 27, 2013
At least be civil, you’re acting out here for no reason. Go see my post on AAD about forgeries worth more than originals, it does happen. Frauds and reproductions usually involve the words limited editions or photography, and behavior is a value judgment.
Janet
July 27, 2013
The very expert Knoedler is now out of business due to being at the very least duped into buying and selling fakes. It does rather beg the question of how expert they were and how careful.
Elliot Lee
July 27, 2013
Nobody is infallible Janet, and most dealers, and auction houses for that matter, make or have made mistakes and either bought something that is incorrect, or in the case of auction houses, have sold something that is incorrect. The question is how does one rectify that situation?
Dispute resolution procedures will be simple to understand and follow.
janet
July 27, 2013
Elliot, this was a bit more than an occasional mistake. And my point IS that no one is so expert that they are infallible. All of these certifications are fabrications at best.
Lawrence Klepper
July 27, 2013
Knoedler was an exception to the rule, what rule, there are no rules. She blew it and the jury is still out whether she was in on it or not. This is why we have vetting at antique fairs and judges at art shows, and even then can you be 100% certain that something is as it is presented.
Janet
July 27, 2013
Lawrence, right and while I subscribe to vetting and judges, but in the end all this serves is to undermine the buyers’ remembrance of caveat emptor. After
all: It’s certified!
Elliot Lee
July 27, 2013
The last thing you want is buyers walking around a fair, or into a premises, or shopping online thinking caveat emptor. One has to do everything possible at all times to instil confidence. It shouldn’t be buyer beware.
Perhaps it is time to move beyond the clichéd ‘Dealer’ mindset where the profit motive is the primary driver Janet?
Janet
July 27, 2013
No, Elliot I’m not buying for myself. I am buying to sell. the day I’m not in buyer mindset, I’ll be out of business. And anything that undermines a buyers necessary suspicion is dishonest.
Robert
July 27, 2013
So, we don’t have a problem with the used car salesman status that dealers, and auction houses, sometimes have? Really?
Sarah Ann Filler
July 27, 2013
But you’re assuming that buyers wish to feel suspicious. They don’t. They genuinely place great trust in those who sell them art & antiques, and this trust is to a large degree what defines a good dealer-client relationship. Otherwise, they don’t need dealers. They could go it alone.
July 27, 2013
Robert, do you feel that you are burdened with an image like a used car salesmen? I don’t. I brought up Knoedler for a reason. It begs the question: How would an association have any impact on that situation at all? Lewis brings up the turpitude of Sotheby’s and Christie’s at every turn, but the art & antiques world goes silent about Knoedler. The jury is still out on Knoedler duped or complicit, but regardless stamped and certified “expert”, they sold fakes. This really false assurance that anyone is “expertly infallible” given by the vetted shows is laughable. Unless you want to go the route of real estate and by law list any flaw that could effect the value of the piece, I have yet to hear what a certifying organization would do that would improve the image of the business. And it is also true, that those who are most expert are also those who are most able to doctor pieces effectively. Ever salvage nails from a totaled piece to fix another piece? Did you inform the buyer? Do the vetted shows tell people they can rely on whatever is written on the description, but it’s what is not on the description that they really should be concerned about? A good dose of cynicism is good for people.
Robert
July 27, 2013
Not with antiques Lawrence. It’s a huge problem in fact, which undermines the genuine.
Lawrence Klepper
July 27, 2013
Robert your reply is unclear. What exactly do you mean by Not with antiques. Remember as we reply to each other we separate our responses so it becomes unclear what you or I are referring to.
Janet & Robert, thanks for an enjoyable discussion. I appreciate the openness.
Robert
July 27, 2013
Oh… I was responding to this…’Frauds and reproductions usually involve the words limited editions or photography’. Lots of issues from the beginning and into the future with things made to deceive.
July 27, 2013
To an extent that’s correct – especially in the art world.
I’ll struggle ’til Domesday (which, curiously enough is before Time Immemorial) to categorise my work, ‘though categorisation is, they say, essential for the selling process. In much the same way organisations, be they large or small, hither, thither or even yond, have different issues and different wants and needs. If you have an organisation which battles on behalf of its members – well, there’s nothing intrinsically wrong with that; indeed, in the round it’s got to be a good thing. But the point I’ve been making is who sets the standards? Who says what’s in and what’s out? You can’t have an “anything goes” thing whereby every shape and size of trader be they accredited to the gunwales or just starting out selling their mother’s jewellery on Etsy, or even just sitting on a rock off Orkney clad in but a loin-cloth and a smile thinking deeply about Harrison chronometers, can join – or it just becomes pointless. Besides, the more members you have the less truly representative you can be, because you’re going to have to go with the majority and if that means 50.01%, that means you’re potentially going against the interests – indeed, ruining the businesses – of 49.99% of your members. And in the great mixing bowl of life, you’re going to end up pleasing just 1 person – yourself.
Of course, I’m not decrying the very idea – far from it, in fact. Essentially, numbers rule, and the balance of power is always on the side with the bigger army, even if actual armaments do tend to even things up a bit. My point is that you can’t just go gung-ho into the great blue yonder, blithely ignorant of the pitfalls, pratfalls and nuclear landmines out there like a welcome-mat for the unwary. You have to plan these things carefully, to make sure all the consequences count on the side of the intended. The bigger the number in the association, the louder and more catastrophic the explosion if things go awry.
Sarah Ann Filler
July 27, 2013
Agreed, Andrew. But if you re-read what you just wrote, that’s where we are right now, and going in circles. Time to re-build, perhaps.
Elliot Lee
July 28, 2013
Yes Sarah, time to rebuild.
Lawrence Klepper
July 26, 2013
My first name is Professor, I too have three degrees. That does not make me knowledgeable in most areas of the antique trade. What degree should be required? Archeology, anthropology, art history, or some combination of all three? A degree means regimentation not necessarily standardization. In my book PhD still means piled higher and deeper.
Janet
July 26, 2013
Lawrence, I agree totally.
Robert
July 26, 2013
Again, I haven’t seen any discussions about degrees.
Lawrence Klepper
July 27, 2013
Andrew Gruffund wrote: Now, some might look at the undeniable lack of an education in either composition, art, or renaissance-being-ness, and think me unfit to darken the shoes of those who have such pieces of paper.
Sara Ann Filler wrote: “It appears that the assumption has been made that ‘qualifications’ as defined by some sort of academic/scholarly measure is being suggested here.”
Robert here’s two instances of our resident scholars chiming in on academic matters. Maybe they were not referring to degrees but rather certificates, and I have three of those too, all internationally recognized. Still does not make me a trade specialist.
Lawrence Klepper
July 27, 2013
If we’re talking about America, remember we cannot agree on birth certificates, the dangers of wearing a hoodie, or gun control. If something makes sense there’s a rule against it, and if it makes no sense it is legislated into law.
Elliot Lee
July 27, 2013
Too funny Lawrence!
Sarah Ann Filler
July 27, 2013
No, I don’t suggest that degrees or certificates define anything to be honest with you. All one has to do is speak with artists who have invested in expensive MFA’s to get a real picture of the return on investment there. Ultimately, experience comes from handling and looking at a lot of material, lots of reading, learning etc, among other things. I studied business, but it certainly did not limit my ability to learn the trade or sell great work and it certainly doesn’t define/limit my interest in it. There are obviously a number of other skills which also come into play here and first and foremost is a genuine love for the material.
It’s interesting that out of all the possibilities which could have arisen from this post, this topic feels most uncomfortable for people.
Tom Higginson
July 27, 2013
I still have a boy scout badge for helping old ladies cross the road, but that and talk of of how many degree’s we all have has absolutely no bearing upon Lewis Baer’s article. Lets face it, who cares….
Can anyone quote anything in his original article pertaining to such ?
I thought his excellent article was about advocating the setting up of a national US art & antiques trade organization. Long overdue. I see nothing about certificates or degree’s
Or have I entered a parallel universe by mistake ?
Lawrence Klepper
July 27, 2013
Degrees and certifications are usually requirements to show knowledge and abilities in a given area in order to be considered an expert. Experts who set industry standards and establish the guidelines for an organization supporting the industry. I do not believe that ‘desks’ qualify for an advanced degree, or judgment for that matter.
Robert
July 27, 2013
Desks as in $1 million dollar ones, or $20,000 ones?
Lawrence Klepper
July 27, 2013
Desks full of bricks.
Robert
July 27, 2013
Not following you – aside from the urban slang reference to drugs, you’ve lost me here.
Tom Higginson. Tara Antiques & Tara Antique Desks
July 27, 2013
Lawrence. Once again you have no idea what you are talking about. You have no idea about me, my education, degrees, my business interests or my experience. You just simply have no idea. Unlike you I keep such things private and do not go in for self hype and bu—-it. If you did know you might be very surprised.
I understand that in America professor only means teacher and Lawrence you still have a great deal to learn.
Lawrence Klepper
July 27, 2013
A teacher works in K-12 grades. My full background is open and online for anyone to inspect and judge. Surprise me if you can.
Robert
July 27, 2013
No background in antiques. Studio art and art history.
Janet
July 27, 2013
Yes, definitely a parallel universe.
July 27, 2013
I guess its time to chime in on a discussion that seems to be going off its tracks. My one and only suggesting for some sort of national/international organization is that it should have one common denominator for membership; an economic benefit for those who want a representative organization to lead their collective interests. No membership is perfect in any organization. Doctors give out bogus prescriptions, lawyers abuse escrow accounts, etc, etc, etc.
Membership isn’t so much the issue as what will this organization actually DO to enhance the industry’s image and create greater economic benefits and recognition. This is not rocket science as there are hundreds of successful organization that effectively represent their industries. The key is that it must me run by professionals who can devote their energies specifically to the “bigger picture” of laws, advocacy, and membership well being.
I might be going out on a limb, but if you look at a company like 1stDibs, their collection of member dealers is staggering in depth, diversity, and international. Oh, and they also have a significant economic interest in our/their success. Their strength comes from their numbers (of members and internet presence)and is something to measure as a goal for any representative dealer organization.
Robert
July 27, 2013
1st Dibs and other sites have their own issues, which a dealer organization might help address and also lessen dealers reliance on them – and be more cost-effective as well.
Robert
July 27, 2013
Exactly, Tom. The deflection is simply a ruse to minimize the benefits which could be realized.
Tom Higginson
July 27, 2013
Might I suggest that a bit of common sense prevails.
A few of you start such an organization ( Every journey starting with a single step, et al.) The far seeing and perhaps more established dealers will hopefully join in, and as it gains momentum the doubter’s will or not join as they please & when they finally realize the many benefits. There are none as blind as those who do not wish to see – and that’s their problem. Compromise being everything in life.
Lewis’s idea works very welI in other parts of the Western World, and I say yet again ‘What have you really got to lose’ ?
It only needs someone with drive & energy to start the ball rolling – Lewis Baer, perhaps your moment has arrived…………
Sarah Ann Filler
July 28, 2013
Here is a recent article of interest…
July 31, 2013
Wow – now I know why nothing good comes from any of these discussions. Even an engineer couldn’t keep this train on the tracks.
Might I suggest, before deciding that it would work or wouldn’t work, that Lewis put forth a list of things that the organization would offer to do for it’s members??? Then we can add, subtract, modify etc to see what would be worth pursuing. The way it is now, everyone has a different assumption about what a unifying organization would do or be. One has to define ‘what’ before moving on to how, where, when, etc. as I learned in my corporate consulting days. And we already know ‘why’ – SURVIVAL! Kudos to Lewis for even having the temerity to suggest doing this. So instead of delineating all the reasons why ‘it’ wouldn’t work, why don’t we start by defining ‘it’?? Lewis, start us off please. Then I’ll add my own two cents.