Click & sign

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/934/331/850/auto-glass-industry-national-right-to-fair-trade-petition/

So far, after more than 150 views, only 21 people have signed the petition. (22 counting the the guy from the Islamic Republic of Iran) I was hoping for more.
It really isn't that much to ask. If you copy and paste the link in your browser you will find the Auto Glass Industry National Right to Fait Trade petition. To read the entire petition, click on the word "petition" located next to the overview.

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/934/331/850/auto-glass-industry-national-right-to-fair-trade-petition/

Please forward the link to friends and relatives and ask them to sign too. The more consumers involved the better.

Also, thanks to Clyde and Richard for taking time to add comments.

Dave H

Based on the current PEAK interest to your immature attempt at justice, you should have your 1000 supports by...... NEVER!
To those from foreign countries or those unwilling to put your real name, you clearly don't understand the importance in the validity of your information on the Petition. Your fake signatures aren't worth the paper your electronic signature is put on.
Your actions will haunt you when they are used against your cause. XXOO

WOW tell us how you really feel. Must be all attempts are FUTILE! Lets just all stick our heads in the sand, roll over and accept whatever is thrown at us,,,,, wait a second, that is what is already happening,,, Ah forget it!

Quote: "This action is extremely important to restore free and fair trade to the auto glass industry so that that consumers will have the freedom of choice when it comes to what repair shop works on their vehicles."

There are states that have laws on the books regarding freedom of choice, commonly referred to as "right to choose laws". States choose not to enforce these laws or follow the dictates contained in that legislation.



Quote: "and so that the business agreements between consumers and their chosen repair shops are not interfered with improperly and unduly."

Contract law 101 holds purview over these transactions, short pays have been awarded as "insurers" and their "representative TPAs" are neither, party to the contract of repair.


Congratulations for at least making an attempt, once again, "what is the ask?". Most offer only lip service, to fight is for others, to fat and happy on the current system; for now...



True power rests in the hands of the independent glass shop. Indolence, Negligence, Fear or Ignorance, precludes exercise of that power.



Who is the Customer?

to the Your Efforts are Futile:


Your closing sign off is somewhat confusing to me (I've seen your posts for 2-3 years?) Might you consider changing your sign off to "who is the customer in an insurance claim?" or "who is the glass shop's customer?" or maybe "who owns the car?" or better yet "Just Bill Direct !!"



Seasons Greetings

Emotion based arguments though based upon principle, will not further the cause.

You hold in your hands the answer, though too many fear the use of it. A simple word, consisting of two letters.










Who is the Customer?

I suggest you change the title to be more descriptive.

Thanks to all have signed. This is only the beginning. Each shop owner should bookmark the petition page and educate each customer and help them to sign the petition.

Currently there are so many Antitrust lawsuits being filed against the auto insurers that the Federal Courts are trying to consolidate them. (Lawsuits from at least 10 different States)

We shouldn't let up now.

Thanks Dave for what you are trying to do. We need all Independent shops to stand together and keep fighting the real fraud that is going on. Please understand me, I do not really support new legislation, but what I feel we need is enforcement of the laws we do have. The laws are there but everyone is turning their backs. The pendulum is swinging back, and those who are fighting will eventually win, and sad to say those who keep going with the "flow" will reap the benefits anyway. They probably shouldn't. This is why there is no one talking about what is working to keep proper pricing and access to customers alive.

If the networks shops that think they are independent knew what us non- network, true independent shops knew they would fall on the floor in disbelief. It's really sad.

Keep up the fight along with those who understand at least some of the solutions!

Dave, that is an excellent question, the answer continues to evade. The current ask, in the current petition, we already have; although few shops are exercising these "rights". States who refuse to enforce current laws may as well have saved their ink and time writing those laws. How does one compel enforcement of existing law?

How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time. A gathering (physical or virtual) is required using a microscope to break these issues into edible pieces. Teams have been and continue to work through the courts experiencing success, courts and legislatures are but a piece of the solution.


Presently, steering is one component at the root of this question, although the hidden issue that will trump the steering occurs when our nemesis moves to manipulated data and no longer requires the steering to control price. The argument will then evolve into whose data is accurate, leaving shops to defend their pricing against said manipulated data. The same data shops will have helped establish as "legitimate" through network participation. Look no further than IGA's recent praise of a data manipulator to see the example of a wolf in sheep's clothing who is moving many steps ahead of the steering issue.

It all comes down to "what is the ask?"

Until and Unless we can answer that question, with directly actionable specificity, all of our efforts remain futile.



And so ends this regurgitation,





Who is the Customer?

Yes, like it or not, YEAF pretty much hits the nail on the head.Trying to reinvent the wheel is less productive than greasing the wheel, and getting the wheel to do it's job. More repairers need to work the laws they have, and just maybe push the American Arbitration Association, To improve representation in their respective states.

The laws are there, have been there, and for some reason being swept under the rug, and ignored. Another good place to start is state dept of Revenue. ASK the right questions and see what answers you get.

MAYBE, It's not just the "what is the ASK", first part, but where and "WHO" would take interest. Just a bit more to digest.

I would agree with much of this, to this point.

For example, the petition asks for enforcement of the 1963 Consent Decree.

One must research what is known mostly to collision folks as "The 1963 Consent Decree" and may do so at Consentdecree.com.

The consent decree was enforced. It will not be enforced again. The folks it was enforced against effectively don't exist. The association that conceived, designed, implemented, then defended what was described as "The Plan" which was seen by the US AG R. Kennedy at the time, to be in violation of the law, those folks are gone, for all intents and purposes.

Enforcement of "The Decree" isn't "The Ask", enforcement of the law(s), is the ask.

All laws in place at the time of the 1963 Consent Decree are still in place, and in fact, RICO law has been added to them. Or more simply put, what was deemed to be illegal activity then to allow the defendants enter into a consent decree with the feds to forever be barred from such practices or be prosecuted fully, is still illegal today, even more so with the addition of Racketeering and Corrupt Organization (RICO) law. And you've got Civil as well as Criminal RICO as well these days.

The point, the ask, the goal, the journey, is enforcement of the laws.

I must also add how ironic it was that SGC, in caps, was required in part in the verifcaton image to allow me to post this, and no, I'm NOT kidding!

HTH, and JMHNLO.

Mark 1, I pray that you are wrong because the 1963 Consent Decree is at the heart of many, if not all, of the current lawsuits against the auto insurers brought by the auto body repair industry. The 1963 Consent Decree essentially defines steering.

TPA's, especially one in particular, suggest through their lobbyists that they are saving insurance companies money and help keep premiums lower but it has never been proven. Even the great and mighty Mitchell International in their efforts to promote their eglassclaim software state that GAI models are flawed.

"Unlike third party administrators who offer a fixed price for each claim, eGlassClaim encourages providers to compete for carrier business by improving their offering and terms, resulting in lower overall claim costs and appropriate pricing for every market."

see, http://www.mitchell.com/claims-management-software/insurance-claims-processing/auto-glass.asp

Dave, I believe you're misunderstanding me.

All I'm doing is clarifying "the ask". I'm not saying you, or the Consent Decree, is wrong. But you must also have knowledge of what the collision industry has done to get the Decree, the laws, enforced to date.

The 63 Consent Decree defines much more than just steering. It defines what the Feds deemed to be illegal activity by conspirators across a range of the laws, and none of those laws have changed. That clarifies that what was illegal then, is still illegal, and, in fact, RICO laws have been added on top of what was deemed illegal activity back then.

As to your reference you quoted, I'll borrow from the simplicity of YEAF's posts, something I've also been saying for years. How can someone compete for carrier business when the carrier isn't the buyer, isn't contracting for the repairs to the car? How is it possible, (another of your good points), for an insurer to short pay claimants in order to take that "saved money" and essentially claim to give it back to other insureds in the form of lower premiums? Does any policy state that "we may mitigate your payment to the lowest amount to help us to be more competitive in the insurance marketplace by lowering rates"?

Would any consumer buy such a policy? I doubt it. Where is it written that repairers must subsidize the marketing practices of insurers to assist THEM to be more competitive, by circumventing the basic principles of Contract Law 101? No where I know of.

The Consent Decree will not be enforced because the members of the association, the association itself, that put "The Plan" in place don't exist. The LAWS that the Decree is based on DO, and in fact, are more in consumer's favor now, than then.

As to the body shop cases, that's another discussion, and not for an open board. Only one of them really matters.

Essentially, enforcing THE Decree isn't relevant. Enforcing THE LAWS, as they DID in the 63 Decree, IS RELEVANT. It's "The Ask".

Personally, I don't want to see another consent decree that basically allows the conspirators to walk away with a cease and desist. I want to see some cuffin' and stuffin' after this much time and this much "misappropriation" of consumer's money. But that's just my opinion.

As always, HTH and JMHNLO.

hard to consider this news.

http://www.glassbytes.com/2015/01/signatures-double-on-industry-petition-against-steering/

200+ MILLION insured drivers in the US and you think that 1000 signatures is going to get their attention? Seriously?

FYI 1000 signatures was the default amount. I anticipate much more than that.

Dave, do you still have your own repair network or have you given that up? Is there an agenda?

http://www.actclaims.com/ just curious, plausible deniability?