NLA Certified Sub-Contractor???

could ever muster. Given the small number of NLA members vis a vis the size of the industry (depending upon whether you buy Tom Mazza's figures or Dean Schuler's figures - either makes the number of NLA members small), there is no reason for NLA to crank up another unnecessary "certification program." If NLA merely used its members to come to an agreement on a model "form" to subcontract services, and if the company seeking to subcontract to another USED the form, that would do the trick. The form could provide for AAA arbitration, or common law arbitration, or whatever other procedure seems reasonable and expeditious. Then again, don't we have the same problem here as with getting paid for DOING sub-contract work, i.e., the subcontractor doesn't demand a credit card. If we don't get a credit card to secure payment, what makes us think we'll exchange a contract by fax to protect other rights. NLA or TLPA should have a committee which promulgates recommended forms for use by members, just like local and state boards of realtors do in many places.
Really, Michael, we are just a voice in the wind. NLA is too busy recruiting members to increase dues income to pay lobbyists.
Just in case someone thinks I'm picking on NLA, let me add that the most recent TLPA mailing included a blurb on what TLPA accomplished in 2001. There were two headings - lobbying (basically) and other (basically). The lobbying was 95% and the "other" was 5%. So TLPA doesn't offer anything more than NLA outside of "governmental relations," except what lobbying TLPA does it does a lot better, more effectively, and you receive a lot of pretty good stuff by mail. But neither organization is moving to fulfill the promise of a national chauffeured transportation industry trade association.

James H. Joseph
Pegasus Chauffeured Motor Cars
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
jhj@pegasus-pittsburgh.com

How difficult could it be?

A) Creation of a standardized contract that all members use.

B) Creation of a set of guidelines and payment procedures which all must agree and abide by.

C) Mediation when disputes arise which can be ruled by the contract and guidelines set-up above.

The vote (albeit small at this time) indicates people like the idea.

I can't debate if the NLA/TLPA or any other entity can do it. Perhaps they can't.

If they can't, someone should do it because in the escapades of sub-contracting debacles, the customer is the one who gets hurt. And in the long run, limousine services loose money and clients resulting in regional feuds.

In addition, such a program would ADD VALUE to the NLA or TLPA.

People are always saying, "What do I get out of membership?" If members believe they have a subcontracting ace-in-the-hole, the annual membership fees begin to look attractive. Subcontracting is a big part of this business and

I would think that such a program would do wonders for the trade association that grabs this, implements it, and makes it available for members.

The membership implications could be substantial, especially if you begin to take into account the company's who join the association to make themselves more sub-contracting riskfree to other companies.

http://www.limousinesonline.com/proudmember.gif

how difficult, indeed. You're talking about people who not only can't read and follow by-laws, but don't care to unless it suits their motives. Do you want these people enforcing anything among members? You're also talking about people who can't get names, addresses and fax numbers correct, and who don't return phone calls or e-mail. Value, schmalue - don't try to invent something else for these people to use to try to get a competitive advantage, which is all NLA is about. Remember, it is a figleaf - nothing more, nothing less.
The answer to your question is, that for NLA it is so hard as to be impossible, and not something that you want this gang to try to do anyhow.
Let's not push this issue - someone at NLA might try to grow a brain, and then they'd really be dangerous.

P.S. Is nine votes spread among five options something meaningful? I think not. Wait until the NLA directors check in, then the "go back to your web business, Michael" will take off like a shot - assuming they understand the poll.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Viperion Corporation / Limos.com:
How difficult could it be?

A) Creation of a standardized contract that all members use.

B) Creation of a set of guidelines and payment procedures which all must agree and abide by.

C) Mediation when disputes arise which can be ruled by the contract and guidelines set-up above.

The vote (albeit small at this time) indicates people like the idea.

I can't debate if the NLA/TLPA or any other entity can do it. Perhaps they can't.

If they can't, someone should do it because in the escapades of sub-contracting debacles, the customer is the one who gets hurt. And in the long run, limousine services loose money and clients resulting in regional feuds.

In addition, such a program would ADD VALUE to the NLA or TLPA.

People are always saying, "What do I get out of membership?" If members believe they have a subcontracting ace-in-the-hole, the annual membership fees begin to look attractive. Subcontracting is a big part of this business and

I would think that such a program would do wonders for the trade association that grabs this, implements it, and makes it available for members.

The membership implications could be substantial, especially if you begin to take into account the company's who join the association to make themselves more sub-contracting riskfree to other companies.

http://www.limousinesonline.com/proudmember.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

James H. Joseph
Pegasus Chauffeured Motor Cars
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
jhj@pegasus-pittsburgh.com

I think you are misunderstanding me.

I think the idea has validity. Instead, you want to debate if the NLA can do it.

I am really trying to determine if the idea is purposeful, not if the NLA has the wherewithall to do it.

If the populus finds that the idea is valid then we can argue about "Who can do it?" and who can't.

Right now, I am interested in finding out if people think its a good idea, assuming some entity could implement it correctly. If that entity is the NLA, TLPA, CIA, FBI, BBB, or whatever, so be it.

http://www.limousinesonline.com/proudmember.gif

I think both Michael and Jim have both hit the nail on the head, to an extent.
Michael is correct in assuming operaters need access to a contract the can use(after they fill in the blanks) and that will hold up in court or arbitration.
Jim is correct in stating that all an operater really needs to do is have and USE the contract and that no association has to be involved.
How about this;
Jim, you write the contract.
Michael, you post the contract.
The rest of us can USE the contract.
Problem solved.

Sounds simple -- if the contract governs the sub-contract procedures and payment, in addition to "if-then" scenarios (And gives the breacher recourse), then you probably are correct.

Great post AAA - very well stated.

http://www.limousinesonline.com/proudmember.gif

I always knew someone was going to try to get me to do something like this http://limos.infopop.cc/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif I'm willing to take a swipe at something along these lines, but my first cut would need some serious discussion because of my philosophical opposition to farming-out (my theory is, if you can't do it on a handshake, don't do it) and the fact that we have so little experience doing it. How about this, don't look for anything real soon since I'm so damn busy, but I'll try something and then post it for review and comments. Then we'll take those comments and see how they can be integrated. I must, of course, take the opportunity to say that this is something a committee of NLA should be doing - ha ha!!


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by AAA/GOT:
I think both Michael and Jim have both hit the nail on the head, to an extent.
Michael is correct in assuming operaters need access to a contract the can use(after they fill in the blanks) and that will hold up in court or arbitration.
Jim is correct in stating that all an operater really needs to do is have and USE the contract and that no association has to be involved.
How about this;
Jim, you write the contract.
Michael, you post the contract.
The rest of us can USE the contract.
Problem solved.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> http://limos.infopop.cc/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

James H. Joseph
Pegasus Chauffeured Motor Cars
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
jhj@pegasus-pittsburgh.com

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JHJ:
could ever muster. Given the small number of NLA members vis a vis the size of the industry (depending upon whether you buy Tom Mazza's figures or Dean Schuler's figures - either makes the number of NLA members small), there is no reason for NLA to crank up another unnecessary "certification program." If NLA merely used its members to come to an agreement on a model "form" to subcontract services, and if the company seeking to subcontract to another USED the form, that would do the trick. The form could provide for AAA arbitration, or common law arbitration, or whatever other procedure seems reasonable and expeditious. Then again, don't we have the same problem here as with getting paid for DOING sub-contract work, i.e., the subcontractor doesn't demand a credit card. If we don't get a credit card to secure payment, what makes us think we'll exchange a contract by fax to protect other rights. NLA or TLPA should have a committee which promulgates recommended forms for use by members, just like local and state boards of realtors do in many places.
Really, Michael, we are just a voice in the wind. NLA is too busy recruiting members to increase dues income to pay lobbyists.
Just in case someone thinks I'm picking on NLA, let me add that the most recent TLPA mailing included a blurb on what TLPA accomplished in 2001. There were two headings - lobbying (basically) and other (basically). The lobbying was 95% and the "other" was 5%. So TLPA doesn't offer anything more than NLA outside of "governmental relations," except what lobbying TLPA does it does a lot better, more effectively, and you receive a lot of pretty good stuff by mail. But neither organization is moving to fulfill the promise of a national chauffeured transportation industry trade association.
Science or opinion, my friend, it is your choice....
James H. Joseph
_Pegasus Chauffeured Motor Cars_
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
jhj@pegasus-pittsburgh.com)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dean Schuler

Looks like Jimmy Boy is as excited about helping other operators as he says the NLA Board is.

Ever think of having yourself committed Jim? I know a nice little funny farm near PittsburgH just perfect for crazy-wannabe-important guys like you! You'll be able to spend all day running your mouth and you might even find another crazy bastard who'll listen! http://limos.infopop.cc/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JHJ:
I always knew someone was going to try to get me to do something like this http://limos.infopop.cc/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif I'm willing to take a swipe at something along these lines, but my first cut would need some serious discussion because of my philosophical opposition to farming-out (my theory is, if you can't do it on a handshake, don't do it) and the fact that we have so little experience doing it. How about this, don't look for anything real soon since I'm so damn busy, but I'll try something and then post it for review and comments. Then we'll take those comments and see how they can be integrated. I must, of course, take the opportunity to say that this is something a committee of NLA should be doing - ha ha!!


Quote: "Originally posted by AAA/GOT:
I think both Michael and Jim have both hit the nail on the head, to an extent.
Michael is correct in assuming operaters need access to a contract the can use(after they fill in the blanks) and that will hold up in court or arbitration.
Jim is correct in stating that all an operater really needs to do is have and USE the contract and that no association has to be involved.
How about this;
Jim, you write the contract.
Michael, you post the contract.
The rest of us can USE the contract.
Problem solved." http://limos.infopop.cc/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

James H. Joseph
_Pegasus Chauffeured Motor Cars_
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
jhj@pegasus-pittsburgh.com)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Matt Harrison
AAA Guaranteed On-Time Limousine, Clinton NJ

I personally do not think that farming out is a good idea. I know of a company in the suburban Detroit are that advertises a fleet of over 100 vehicles on their web site, when they in fact have only about 10. They of coarse farm out. I book what I've got (which ain't a lot) when they are booked, I tell prospective Clients to call so and so and I even give them the number. That way, no one is going to get the opertunity to mess with my reputataion. The certicication is only as good as the Guy representing you on the street. You could have all the certifications in the world but if you had one Chauffeur who is a Jerk, you got a problem.

David E. Merrill