Sigh... While it is true that at one time, we relied on a generic antitrust policy, this has not been true for quite some time. Our current antitrust policy was developed specifically for us, at the PTG board's insistence. One of the reasons that PTG members must not "blow off" antitrust considerations is _because_ we are so small; we would be an easy target. Our current antitrust policy is the best we have been able to do, and we must follow it. To suggest otherwise is foolhardy, to put it bluntly. Kent On Apr 10, 2005, at 12:28 PM, Fred Sturm wrote: > On 4/9/05 8:30 PM, "Jim" <jim@pianoguy.com> wrote: > >> Why not get the PTG to investigate and report factually on how the A-T >> legislation does relate to our profession. > > Amen!! We rely on a generic legal opinion developed for professional > organizations - an opinion which may be valid for doctors, cpa's, > lawyers > and the like, as their professional organizations have almost all > practitioners as members (thus are virtual monopolies) and are directly > involved in certifications which are commonly required by law (you > can't > practice law without passing the bar exam, which is created and > administered > by the ABA, for instance). > But the situation of PTG is SO different from these organizations > that I > don't believe we need have the least bit of worry with respect to > anti-trust > laws, regardless of decades of paranoia and commonly held belief. We > are > such a marginal profession, we probably don't even comprise a majority > of > those "practicing the profession (loosely defined)," and our one > certification has no legal standing. How in the world can we "restrain > trade?" (even if we weren't such a bunch of individualists, and could > come > to some sort of agreement as to prices). > Regards, > Fred Sturm > University of New Mexico > > _______________________________________________ > caut list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives >
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC