Report this comment to a moderator

Opinion: Guilty firms should dig deep and repay miners

Vested interests make objectivity difficult I think there were unpalatable aspects of the Beresfords/Vendside/UDM arrangements; to the extent that they may be a one-off. But there is a lot of sanctimonius and hypocritical tripe from those represented as the "union firms." I see no distinction between a miner who, in return for a fee paid to that introducer only, is fed through to a lawyer whether from a union or a claims management type organisation. BOTH provide a an essential marketing conduit. Subject to the current disclosure requirements, such a method of introduction of referral business is perfectly acceptable today and the only difference is the rather pathetic attempt by the union firms to claim some higher moral ground where none exists. I have done union and non-union PI work for 20 years and I have never noticed a different objective. All claimants want competent representation. In this instance (ignoring the Beresfords MO) the claimants do not care whether they are paying arrears of subs, contributions to a fund or, a deduction. They are simply interested in their claim being successfully pursued with the least possible deduction. Thousands of men used knowingly turned their backs on union representation because it would mean facing a higher deduction than through a claims-management organisation. It seems to me these men were objective in their thinking and certainly not mis-led.

26-Jan-2009

1:16 pm