allen...@ul.com writes: >Well, gee lets see. I work for....Therefore I want my mark to go away and >make everyone who is in this business equal. > >OK, how about this. Everyone remove their brand name from products. Let's >have one mark and generic products only. Thats a free market system >right??? > > >Or we just have one lab become world wide dominate and only use their >mark. > naw.
I don't think that this is what we are really asking for. It just dawns on me, anyway, that I don't really care what one single agency mark I use on my products. I am testing to what is essentially the same standards over and over and over and paying over and over and over. This is what I personally object to. It is counter-productive and inefficient. Tell me I have to have a mark, any ONE mark, and OK, I'll do it gladly. I like the third party confirmation that I have read, understood and applied the standards. That will be much better for me should the unthinkable happen and someone chooses to sue me for something my product supposedly did or didn't. > >Right now Government and Retailers have decided they want some proof of a >"safe" product. In the case of the US, an Independant Corporation took >the >"bull" by the horns and created a set of standards to evauate products >to. >They then created a mark whereby a manufacturer could display showing >they >underwent this evaluation and complied. Governments, Retailers and >Consumers >liked this idea and bought into it. Hooray for the progressive >Corporation. And a great job the Independent Corporation did, too. > >Now this Corporation got to big. Others started to complain that they >wanted >a piece of the market too. The bad word "monopoly" arose and the >Government >interviened to put a stop to it. Now these little guy's have the >Government >backing their existance by law instead of by experience. But isn't this what democracy is all about? The ability for anyone who can muster the resources to enter a market can do so? The government did not end a "monopoly", the made the law more generic, fair and uniform. They removed a special treatment for a single entity. And, as always, it's caveat emptor when it comes to choosing your "agent". >But the big >Corporation has too much history and too much acceptance. So the little >guy's >want to go back to the Government and have the individual marks done away >with so the can compete in a market they had nothing to do with >developing. I don't think this is what any of us are really saying. We really want a single mark. But get the semantic point here. One mark, not a specific single mark from a specific single source, but a single mark from the source of our choosing selected from the many providers available.One test, one mark, one cost. > >They want a mark that is sanitized from any history or experience as >being a >quality mark. They want the Government to control the market. They do not >want to build their acceptance the "Old Fashion Way" by hard work. I for one won't do business with a provider unless and until they can convince me that my money is well spent. That means proving that they can provide a consistent, reliable and cost-effective product (mark) to me. And that usually only comes from hard work. > > >Like I said, Sounds like we need a World wide Government controlling all >products and approvals. Everything will be generic and have one name and >one >mark. Oh and how about we just make everything Gray...... My products are already gray. > > >Now I have been an Agent, with two different labs and in manufacturing. I >understand the pain of multiple requirements. But I am willing to live >with >this as opposed to the alternative I just outlined. Point made. I don't want any more government control than there already is. In fact, I would like a little less. In these times of competition and tight markets, we need to look at every way possible to be more productive and less wasteful. Spending the time and money for three or four or more marks is one of those things that gets looked at. > >I will duct now and watch your fireworks. >Oh, one last thought. This diatribe is not to be misconstrued as having >the >sanction of my employer. > > >John L. Allen, P.E. >Manager - Atlanta >Local Engineering Services >Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. >770-498-9156 > > Comments from: Scott Douglas Principal Compliance Engineer ECRM Incorporated s_doug...@ecrm.com --------- This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.com with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.co (the list administrators).
