Hello HUBGFE !

[TRAC]

I figure you actually mean that not all non-members are unethical and in fact all TRAC members were indeed non-members at one time.

However with TRAC you do have our promise that our members are held to the standards set forth in our policies.
Should you have a problem with a member agency or in the future member SP, TRAC will work with you to make it right.


Could it be said this is true?

To elaborate on my previous comment, to become a TRAC member, an agency's business practices are vetted. By virtue of membership these agencies are publicly stating that they operate in a transparent and non exploitive manner.
This level of commitment both to the ladies that are represented and the clients that utelize these services should be what all agencies strive for. It should also be what clients look for when booking with an agency.

SPs themselves are not members, just as clients are not members. TRAC will work with anyone that requires our help to make the industry safer for all involved.

TRAC

 

[oldguyzer]

So, it's an agency self-policing group, for agency members only, and you discourage customers from seeing anyone at an agency that is not a member.

While I applaud attempts to control the bad side of the business, becoming a self-inclusive group does more harm than good when you pass that kind of message along.

 

[papasmerf]

So, it's an agency self-policing group, for agency members only, and you discourage customers from seeing anyone at an agency that is not a member.

While I applaud attempts to control the bad side of the business, becoming a self-inclusive group does more harm than good when you pass that kind of message along.

Starting to sound like a union.
I do not mean to be rude but to say unless they are members they are bad is not factual.

Also independent SP's should also be able to be members...............Otherwise it implies that you only support agencies.

 

[oldguyzer]

Starting to sound like a union.
I do not mean to be rude but to say unless they are members they are bad is not factual.

Also independent SP's should also be able to be members...............Otherwise it implies that you only support agencies.

Yep, that was my read too...

 

[papasmerf]

Yep, that was my read too...

It is a shame

The concept had promise

 

[TRAC]

So, it's an agency self-policing group, for agency members only, and you discourage customers from seeing anyone at an agency that is not a member.

While I applaud attempts to control the bad side of the business, becoming a self-inclusive group does more harm than good when you pass that kind of message along.

Wow. You guys are tough. Yes it's a self regulating body. Why does that sound like a negative coming from you? Yes we encourage clients to use member agencies. We also encourage clients to inform their favorite agency about TRAC. We're a group that believes that this business can be run ethically and have put our time, money and effort into making that public. Why is that wrong?
I'm sorry but I don't understand where the negative is in this message.....

TRAC

 

[TRAC]

Starting to sound like a union.
I do not mean to be rude but to say unless they are members they are bad is not factual.

Also independent SP's should also be able to be members...............Otherwise it implies that you only support agencies.

I've never said that non members are bad. Simply that ALL members are good. There is a difference. For those of you who use agencies and want to know that the business you're using runs ethically this is a research free way to do that. We've done the work for you. Self serving? A little maybe, but don't the agencies that operate this way deserve the recognition for doing so?
Also, I believe I said in an earlier post that we encourage indipendents to become members to take advantage of and contribute to the bad client list but that they would not be members in the spirit of TRAC as one assumes that independents are not exploited.
This is in fact the reputable agencies council...... We can't be all things to all people however we are trying to be as proactive as possible in ensuring the industry is safe and that we as an industry do our best to combat the bad.

TRAC

 

[papasmerf]

I've never said that non members are bad. Simply that ALL members are good. There is a difference. For those of you who use agencies and want to know that the business you're using runs ethically this is a research free way to do that. We've done the work for you. Self serving? A little maybe, but don't the agencies that operate this way deserve the recognition for doing so?
Also, I believe I said in an earlier post that we encourage indipendents to become members to take advantage of and contribute to the bad client list but that they would not be members in the spirit of TRAC as one assumes that independents are not exploited.
This is in fact the reputable agencies council...... We can't be all things to all people however we are trying to be as proactive as possible in ensuring the industry is safe and that we as an industry do our best to combat the bad.

TRAC

You answered my concern.

Seems to me though that many independents may want to be included in your business model.

It would give them a chance to affirm their support and willingness to work with other members.

 

[oldguyzer]

I've never said that non members are bad.

You said:

"Thats where you come in. By refusing to spend your money at an agency that doesn't operate this way. Unless of course you have no problem supporting unethical business practices?"

How else can I read that but insinuating that all non-members are unethical?

 

[Jasper]

I would ignore Papa's concerns, from previous threads he's made it known he doesn't approve of agencies.

 

[papasmerf]

I would ignore Papa's concerns, from previous threads he's made it known he doesn't approve of agencies.

I do not disapprove of agencies.
In fact many ladies start out as indies and get bogged down in the business part of it and land with an agency .


Nor do I disapprove of independents.
The flip side is true that many ladies start out with an agency and move on to indie status.

 

[oldguyzer]

Indeed, most of the ladies I know in the business started out with agencies, but then moved off as indies. Only a few continue as indies because of hte overhead and routine tasks to be done. But there are several I know who started as indies, loved it, and stayed that way.

I have spent about half my time with agencies and half with indies. In the end, they both have advantages and disadvantages.

 

[TRAC]

You said:

"Thats where you come in. By refusing to spend your money at an agency that doesn't operate this way. Unless of course you have no problem supporting unethical business practices?"

How else can I read that but insinuating that all non-members are unethical?

That wasn't an insinuation. Nor was it stating that non member agencies are unethical. Simply that all member agencies are ethical. So, by using member agencies exclusively ( for those of you that do )you are a: putting your money where your mouth is and b: encouraging non member agencies to become members by affecting their bottom line. Perhaps I should have been more clear.
As a client, if you want to affect change in the industry you need to make informed decisions.
Look, bottom line is that we all know that just because an agency appears reputable doesn't mean that they are. Nor would a client know just by looking at a companion, that they are being exploited in some way. By using member agencies you are ensuring that the companion you're seeing is there on her terms with the support of a member agency.

TRAC

 

[TRAC]

You answered my concern.

Seems to me though that many independents may want to be included in your business model.

It would give them a chance to affirm their support and willingness to work with other members.

There will certainly be resources in place for independent companions just not the regulating ability that TRAC can provide with member agencies. We want to work with everyone but we need to start somewhere.

TRAC

 

[papasmerf]

There will certainly be resources in place for independent companions just not the regulating ability that TRAC can provide with member agencies. We want to work with everyone but we need to start somewhere.

TRAC

I agree.
And this is a good start.

 

[oldguyzer]

That wasn't an insinuation. Nor was it stating that non member agencies are unethical. Simply that all member agencies are ethical. So, by using member agencies exclusively ( for those of you that do )you are a: putting your money where your mouth is and b: encouraging non member agencies to become members by affecting their bottom line. Perhaps I should have been more clear.
As a client, if you want to affect change in the industry you need to make informed decisions.
Look, bottom line is that we all know that just because an agency appears reputable doesn't mean that they are. Nor would a client know just by looking at a companion, that they are being exploited in some way.

TRAC

Not trying to be argumentative, because I do support what you are trying to do, but your message is getting perhaps a little warped in enthusiasm.

You cannot by any means say "all member agencies are ethical" because they won't be. Sure, you can make them non-members if they do something unethical, but arguing just because the agency is a member precludes them from doing anything unethical is nonsense.

The argument about encouraging agencies to be members is valid to a point, but membership presumably has a cost, so not all will want to join as it increases the overhead costs for what is not really any real return. You can't exactly issue BBB seals for the doors of the agencies.

The argument about a client choosing your members because they want to affect changes is a bit of a stretch. If I don't visit a member, does that imply I don't want safety and security for the ladies involved? Of course not!

And no matter how you spin it, you clearly said if we visit non-members, we are supporting unethical business practices. That's not open to misinterpretation.

Most of us, whichever side of the business we are on (and some are on both sides) want a secure and non-threatening environment for the workers in the field, no question, but I also think these tactics are not the best way to go about recruiting. Not to mention that there are probably all sorts of legal gotchas for agencies...

 

[TRAC]

Not trying to be argumentative, because I do support what you are trying to do, but your message is getting perhaps a little warped in enthusiasm.

You cannot by any means say "all member agencies are ethical" because they won't be. Sure, you can make them non-members if they do something unethical, but arguing just because the agency is a member precludes them from doing anything unethical is nonsense.

The argument about encouraging agencies to be members is valid to a point, but membership presumably has a cost, so not all will want to join as it increases the overhead costs for what is not really any real return. You can't exactly issue BBB seals for the doors of the agencies.

The argument about a client choosing your members because they want to affect changes is a bit of a stretch. If I don't visit a member, does that imply I don't want safety and security for the ladies involved? Of course not!

And no matter how you spin it, you clearly said if we visit non-members, we are supporting unethical business practices. That's not open to misinterpretation.

Most of us, whichever side of the business we are on (and some are on both sides) want a secure and non-threatening environment for the workers in the field, no question, but I also think these tactics are not the best way to go about recruiting. Not to mention that there are probably all sorts of legal gotchas for agencies...

Not trying to be argumentative, because I do support what you are trying to do, but your message is getting perhaps a little warped in enthusiasm.

Thank you. Please offer alternative suggestions as to how to relay the information more concisely and with less enthusiasm .


You cannot by any means say "all member agencies are ethical" because they won't be. Sure, you can make them non-members if they do something unethical, but arguing just because the agency is a member precludes them from doing anything unethical is nonsense.


I can say that all member agencies are ethical as TRAC has vetted them. Is this process infallible? Of course not but it’s a damn good start.


The argument about encouraging agencies to be members is valid to a point, but membership presumably has a cost, so not all will want to join as it increases the overhead costs for what is not really any real return. You can't exactly issue BBB seals for the doors of the agencies.


Actually we can. All member agencies will have the right to use a seal on their website that identifies them as a member.
Yes membership has a cost. Our hope is that agencies will see value in becoming members. This happens when clients demand that they are members. If enough of you back us up and use member agencies exclusively ( again for those of you that use agencies ) then the value grows exponentially and everyone wins.


The argument about a client choosing your members because they want to affect changes is a bit of a stretch. If I don't visit a member, does that imply I don't want safety and security for the ladies involved? Of course not!


Is it? A stretch I mean?? How do you know that the companion you are seeing at agency x isn't there because the agency said you have to do this appointment or you're fired?
It's not human trafficking but it is still unethical. Would you feel good about your appointment knowing that?






And no matter how you spin it, you clearly said if we visit non-members, we are supporting unethical business practices. That's not open to misinterpretation.


No. Again I'll repeat, I said that you should refuse to bring your business to an agency that doesn't operate this way.
Again..... How do you know that the agency you are using is run ethically?






Most of us, whichever side of the business we are on (and some are on both sides) want a secure and non-threatening environment for the workers in the field, no question, but I also think these tactics are not the best way to go about recruiting. Not to mention that there are probably all sorts of legal gotchas for agencies...





Agreed. This is what we want. How do you suggest we get there?
As for legal gotchas…well, we have that on both sides now. Do you want to mitigate that risk and thereby taking steps to ensure that you're doing all you can….for yourself as well as the companions you enjoy? What has status quo gotten us so far?
No one is saying you must do this but we are passionate about what we are attempting and we hope that by presenting this to the community we will affect positive change. It's all for the greater good after all. Yours and ours. One baby step at a time.


TRAC

 

[Alfonso]

Amen