Tucker,
Climb down off your soapbox. I just made an observation and did not lead anyone anyplace. There is no accusitory tone and I am not fostering anything. This is still America last time I checked so I am free to comment. Congratulations that you have never offered less co-op but I could personally care less because I use an EBA which spells out how much I will be paid.

Ethical or Not? That is for her local board to determine which is obviously not an issue because it appears nobody has complained or whined about discrimination. What she is doint is not illegal because the minimum co-op fee to be paid is what is in MLS.

Quote: There may or may not be a bonus.

If there is a field on your input screen in which to enter a bonus, you MUST enter it there. You can't decide when the agent calls with out leaving yourself open to charges of discrimination.

Quote: I think what the majority is missing in my posting is that A SET COMMISSION is stated in the MLS for the Buyer Broker.

We fully understand.

If you don't like what other offices offer for a co-op, write them a letter and disclose what you will pay that office if they buy your listing. Your approach is sneaky and therefor a poor practice.

Quote: Ethical or Not? That is for her local board to determine which is obviously not an issue because it appears nobody has complained or whined about discrimination.

We are in the ethics topic area and you have no idea who has complained or not. Yes, it is for her board to decide and it is for us to discuss. And yes, that object on your shoulder is a chip.

Tucker,
So please tell me how I have a chip on my shoulder?

I would be willing to guess that nobody has complained or I am sure Donna would have mentioned that her policy had been challenged and upheld. SHe appears to be still doing it so we can all safely assume that there has been no ruling against her for doing this.

It appears that it is you that has the chip on the shoulder so consider it knocked off.
Funny but your defensive attitude all started with my simple comment that the only ones that would have issue with with her policy would be the so called "Discounters".

What's wrong did that strike too close to home for you?

Again you fail to address the real issue and would rather point fingers. Any type of an "undisclosed" bonus is highly problematic at best and illegal at worst. And I knocked your chip off first, so there.

Paul,

Yes, there was a ruling agains this. There was a post on the NAR email updates in which a company in the NE was not paying the same Co broke to discounters. The court ruled against that company. I'll try to find that article....

Rick-

If you think I am in violation, then of what Article?

Article 1-9 are duties to clients and customers - (These don't pertain)
Article 10-14 are duties to the public - (These don't pertain)
Articles 15-17 are duties to REALTORS. (Must be in here)

Before you answer, remember that the BUYER BROKER COMMISSION IS LISTED IN THE MLS. It states exactly what the commission is to ALL BROKERS/AGENTS. It is NOT a violation of Article 1, 2, 12, nor is it a violation of Article 6 or 3. Article 17 can't happen because it is disclosed on the MLS and would be paid at the COE. So Rick & Tucker TX - What am I in violation of?
It is not a violation of the MLS because the Commission IS LISTED!. :rolleyes: and NO Bonuses don't have to be listed in the MLS -

Before you answer, I think you should know that I am on the local Grievance Committee - and have been for several years . . .

I have a question for you. I know you list properties but do you also sell properties?
Think about it - don't answer until you have thought about it and I really mean "thought about it". (It is wishful thinking but I hope a light goes on) Rick, I know you have not been a Agent very long and I have no idea how long TUCKER TX has been licensed either but I am betting it hasn't been very long either -

If I remember correctly you stated that you give a different percentage to discounters than to full commission agencies, is that correct. I'll go back and find the post if I need to.

I'll go find the article which listed the court case.

Grievance Committee.... How can you objectively be on a Greivance Committee when you clearly discriminate against discounters. YOU ARE A WALKING CONFLICT OF INTEREST!!!!

Salem, you are in violation of Artical 2:

Article 2
REALTORS® shall avoid exaggeration, misrepresentation, or concealment
of pertinent facts relating to the property or the transaction.

You are concealing the true amount of compensation if Realtors must call in to pass a screen test.

Tucker TX -

You are not correct. Article 1-9 are duties to clients and customers. Article 2 does NOT pertain.
Try again -

It does pertain if you have not disclosed this type of "undisclosed compensation" to your clients.

Tucker TX

My client, who is the Seller, which I have a signed contract with, which has the noted commission.
Try again -

So you are paying a bonus and not inputing that information in the assigned MLS field, correct? And you are only paying this bonus to people you decide are not 'discounters', correct? Let's suppose that 3 agents are denied the bonus, you call them 'discounters' and they all belong to a protected class. How do you explain that you are not engaging in a discriminatory practice?

Tucker & Rick,
Keep trying! It is rather amusing to watch the 2 of you grasp at straws. Donna appears to know the COE rather well and has it locked at this point. Tucker I do not recall "Discounters" being on the protected classes list to qualify for discrimination. This has turned into a great exercise on reading and understanding the COE.

Rick, Tucker -

Why haven't you answered my question?