Nick Gromicko Your Opinion Is Wanted

Very true words. It’s all sad but true. NACHI and all it’s members got harmed, and it still continues.

Jim

A lot brighter than you think i total understand the head hunt you are on .
I do not have the service but i do not continue hound ,If people want it who cares it is a free country and it is their business .It is called free enterprise something you should hold dearly espesially all the whining you do about less government . Seems to me you talk from both sides of your mouth . But that doesn’t surprise me at all.

Trash is trash. Large sausage is what they crave.

Unfortunately Larson and a few others have constantly added much fuel to the fire .

Stop feeding it and move on helping others instead of their silly complaints.

More cooperation and we might be able to salvage what we had .

Go back to the Canadian section and continue your fight with your detractors.

They seem to have more than a few problems with you.

Segregation is back lol

[quote=“rcooke, post:24, topic:79220”]

**More cooperation and we might be able to salvage what we had ./**QUOTE]

You are correct, but inorder for that to happen all root causes need to be removed, then and only then can NACHI rise above the rest and achieve greatness.

Jim

[quote=“jkeilson, post:27, topic:79220”]

We had it before and can do it again ,Less filth ,less attacks and more politeness might be a great start.

I vote for Less Roy. :wink:

I’ll answer the question as long as you understand that it is just my personal opinion. I’m not saying I’m right and everyone who disagrees with me is wrong. If those terms are agreeable to you Jim, I will reveal my own thinking on the matter. OK?

Yes Of course Nick. I and many others value your opinion, whether they agree or not. I just want to know your personal opinion on the subject.

Jim

I would love to see his opinion as well.

It should be coming. That was the only point to this thread.

Jim

Here is my personal thinking on it. Jim, you used the word “sell” in your question, I’ll replace it with the word “release.” I would only do it if three things were true. Two of three wouldn’t be enough. Note: A clause in my contract giving me permission to release their information is not one of the three. I know this is surprising to most members, but I don’t give the inspector much credit for slipping in a clause that permits the inspector to release his/her client’s information to a third party. It probably doesn’t hurt to have such a clause in your contract, but I would not feel right in later pointing to it as sole justification for releasing my client’s information without their knowledge (above and beyond them signing the contract). Therefore, it is not one of my three requirements. Here are my three requirements, and again, all three would have to be true:

  1. I alerted my client that I’m releasing his/her information to a third party and my reasoning for doing so. Note again: merely a clause slipped into a contract by the author of the contract is not “alerting my client” IMHO. In other words, I would only feel right about it if I told them verbally that I was doing it and explained why.
  2. I believe releasing the information is of benefit to my client. In other words, I’m doing it to help my client.
  3. I am not being compensated for releasing that information. In other words, I’m not doing it for any other reason than to help my client.

Again, for me, all three would have to be true.

I agree. Many do. Good post.

A concerned citizen from the public asked a very valid question on another thread regarding this topic. He asked why it was that a home inspector … as the customer … would ever agree to have a vendor he hired to serve him dictate to HIM what he should put into his own inspection agreement. So far, no one has tried to answer that question. You’ve come the closest.

Thanks Nick for the honest reply. The only thing I would add to your c3 rules would be for #1 would be in writing and signed by client otherwise it is only hearsay down the line if ever brought up in a court of law.

Jim

What is considered “compensation”?

It doesn’t matter what one might personally “consider” to be compensation when they actually contract with the alarm systems salesman to receive “compensation” (the exact term the salesman uses in his contract) in exchange for the clients personal information.

It is what it is. Compensation.

Receiving it in any form in exchange for client personal data, directly or indirectly, is unethical (ASHI standards) and illegal (according to several state licensing laws).

It doesn’t matter what one might personally “consider” to be compensation when they actually contract with the alarm systems salesman to receive “compensation” (the exact term the salesman uses in his contract) in exchange for the clients personal information.

It is what it is. Compensation.

Receiving it in any form in exchange for client personal data, directly or indirectly, is unethical (ASHI standards) and illegal (according to several state licensing laws).

I never received a penny from any alarm company. I give the saving to my client as I think many many do.

But I feel that I do get “compensated”. I feel my clients are very happy and compensate me with more clients, which will lead to more income. So then am I ‘indirectly compensated’ for this superior service and to pass the savings on to my clients?