Superior Product and Service seals are now tied to InterNACHI's Vendor Code of Ethics

http://www.nachi.org/productseals.htm

I notice that you revised this page and deleted the former acknowledgment/requirement that a vendor using these seals agree that inspectors may post their dissatisfaction with the product or service on the NACHI message board and that the vendor will respond.

Is this to accommodate the dishonest and unethical vendor who removed his seal from his website when a notice of this clause was published?

I also noticed that the NACHI Vendor Ad Policy which he violated has been removed. Will he be rewriting a page to replace it?

And the slide down the slippery slope continues.:frowning:

Members can already post their dissatisfaction with any product or service without vendor consent. The vendor can respond or ignore. The Product and Service seals also now require vendors to abide by http://www.nachi.org/vendor-ethics.htm

It’s all becoming integrated.

Yep.

I copied the old policy on a pdf file, anticipating that it might disappear shortly after posting a link to it. Things like that are becoming more common.

Anyway, here is what it said:

The revised version, if it is replaced, should be quite interesting in comparison.

When the Chairman of the ESOP attempted to enforce this policy, a very dishonest and unethical vendor threatened to file a frivolous lawsuit against him for doing so … thus, members have never actually been protected by this policy, anyway. Let’s see how much lower the bar is set in the next version.

We’re integrating everything instead of having various policies on different pages all over the place.

Even our Member Code of Ethics now has a tab at the top of the page to find the Vendor Code of Ethics. www.nachi.org/code_of_ethics.htm

And our Vendor Code of Ethics now has a tab at the top of the page to find our Member Code of Ethics. www.nachi.org/vendor-ethics.htm

That’s a fancy and meaningless buzzward.

It makes sound like you are doing something useful.

Too bad its only a buzz word.

Much more than a buzzword. We had to find and change hundreds of pages, reprint brochures, reprint books, rewrite courses, rewrite quizzes, rewrite exams, resubmit those courses for approval, and on and on.

He borrowed it from Thornberry … where other vendors are “integrating” their products to his so that kickbacks can be quickly paid for the client information that is being sold to him. There are many ways for a client’s contact information to reach this stage.

You are the putz you call your buddy.
You have nothing good to say…ever .
I feel sorry for you …Yes! I do !

See if you can make some kind of useful post with attacking me.

You are alway the aggressor !
I’d like to backhand ya for alway being such a putz! !

You are only saying that to attempt to remove a little bit of your liability by endorsing something you know to be wrong.

This is quite obvious, but say what you want.

Jim

And what would that be?

Jim — You use a NACHI vendor at your own risk.

All Nick promises is a better deal than a non-member gets. He does not promise honesty, integrity, value, or performance for any product or service provided by any vendor. That has always been the case and should be even more obvious, today.

He puts on the T-shirt and points to the logo … then, it’s all up to you.
Caveat emptor.

Nick !
It appears you can’t do anything correct, as some may think.
Who is their enemies enemy !

Correct.

And there is nothing wrong with it … until you decide to interfere with the process.

You present dishonest and unethical businessmen with their discounts and leave it to the members to protect themselves. This is good.

Then … during that cleansing process … you choose to overrule the infrastructure designed to do that (the ESOP Committee) … delete the NACHI Vendor Ad Policy … and revise the code of ethics to accommodate unethical behavior. That is the gripe against you, Nick.

You can’t have it both ways.

I’ve never overruled ESOP (strike one), the Vendor Ad Policy has been integrated into the Vendor COE (strike two), and we’ve never revised a COE to accommodate unethical behavior (strike three).

Batter up!

The umpire is either blind or has also “revised” the strike zone. :wink: