Alias Training "Divorces"

[redbone]

Redbone,

Point out the post(s) where anyone here suggested the students in past classes owed the instructors money.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you missed my earlier reply (post #103). I never suggested someone actually said that in the first place. Feel free to reread my posts. And when you asked me about it, I said no one said that, and if they did they would be ridiculed.

I just extrapolated the logic used here that the students are somehow responsible for getting the money from Alias. If the students are on hook for classes that haven't been held, then why aren't they on the hook for classes that have already been held. It's a thought experiment to show how faulty the logic is that somehow the students should just eat the lost fees (when it's the instructors that hired Alias.)

[orionz06]

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you missed my earlier reply (post #103). I already said no one said that, and if they did they would be ridiculed.

I just extrapolated the logic used here that the students are somehow responsible for getting the money from Alias. If the students are on hook for classes that haven't been held, then why aren't they on the hook for classes that have already been held. It's a thought experiment to show how faulty the logic is that somehow the students should just eat the lost fees (when it's the instructors that hired Alias.)

Who did the students pay again?


Sent from my Nokia 3310 using an owl

[redbone]

Look at it another way. Craig is out money for a class he already taught. From who do you think he's going to be trying to get the money he's owed? If you answered Alias, you are correct.

But by some peoples logic, the students should have to pay a second time, since it's not Craig's fault that Alias hasn't paid. After all, we don't expect these trainers to work for free, right. Some students need to cough up what they owe Craig (by the logic that students are left holding the bag for Alias's problem.)

This is for you, JLW. Notice I said "by some peoples logic". I didn't say anyone actually said that. It should have been clear then.

[redbone]

Who did the students pay again?


Sent from my Nokia 3310 using an owl

Someone hired by the instructors to collect fees, advertise classes, promote the instructors, and handle logistics.

Question for you - Would it would be different if it was Pat Mac's direct hire business manager that squandered the money? If the answer is yes, why?

[orionz06]

Someone hired by the instructors to collect fees, advertise classes, promote the instructors, and handle logistics.

Then why wouldn't they go after that Someone hired by the instructors to collect fees, advertise classes, promote the instructors, and handle logistics for their money? That's the very same person the instructors are going after too...

Question for you - Would it would be different if it was Pat Mac's direct hire business manager that squandered the money? If the answer is yes, why?

It would likely be very different. I assume with a direct hire there would be business insurance with theft coverage, given the ease at which one can walk off with money. In this same hypothetical instance I'm not sure anyone would walk off with money owed to FOUR instructors for a period ranging from six months to a year (or more). In this very instance the students would have paid the instructor and the instructor would have the money for the service.

[WobblyPossum]

The way I understand it, Alias charged the instructors a fee to set up ranges, get students signed up, and manage equipment so all the instructor had to focus on was teaching. Alias collected money from the students and was responsible for paying the instructors what was owed.

It sounds like Alias took a lot of people's money but they haven't been great at paying instructors. Some folks seem to be ignoring that Alias victimized the instructors as well as the students. Numerous instructors have been mentioned as having taught Alias classes they have not been paid for. It's not fair to expect one set of victims (the instructors) to lose out twice by having to refund the money that the other set of victims (students) paid for classes that are now cancelled.

It sounds like the instructors are going to come after Alias for the money they're owed and the students should do the same for the money they paid. By the logic of some people, why don't the instructors just go after the students that attended classes for which the instructors weren't compensated? If the students shouldn't have to pay twice, why should the instructors?

The only objectively right thing to do is for everyone to go after Alias, the entity that actually screwed all the parties over. If some of the instructors involved want to honor the booked classes or offer credit for future classes, that's awesome and I applaud them. Let's not forget that's a kindness that they don't owe anyone. It's not some kind of duty they have to perform to make all things right in the world and bring balance to the force.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[hiro]

Apart from Alias's one message announcing it was closing up shop, has anyone actually read or know first hand and verifiable, (let's not speculate any further!) their side of the story?

I'm not making excuses for them, I have no horse in this race. I can see how Alias' silence could be inferred as guilt and the money they took from course participants has gone somewhere, I'm struggling to see how "the business model" could have had high expenses. That said, there's a side to this we don't know and until/if it appears in court, will we know?

[TCinVA]

That said, there's a side to this we don't know and until/if it appears in court, will we know?

The fact that Pat Mac's announcement led with a mention of integrity, and that SouthNarc has pretty plainly stated that this was FRAUD pure and simple, and that a number of us have quite a bit of experience with the shithead who caused all this is plenty, dude.

There's no "side" to this that we don't know.

[luckyman]

I guess the way I would think to look at it is, 'who did the student pay the money to'? If they went to an Alias website or called Alias on the phone and paid, then they are most fundamentally Alias' customer. Not trying to discount that the instructor and their reputation is also involved, but I'd personally focus on the party whom the student paid.

That's definitely the way to look at it from a legal standpoint. But from a "running a business" standpoint there are more perspectives . This is actually a pretty common subject / risk when evaluating outsourcing/business partnerships/business relationships. And note I am psychologically firmly in the camp of the trainers on this subject.

Most factors revolve around how much choice the customer has. One factor dimension is how much is the product/service a commodity? If what Alias was providing was generic CCW classes, the issue would be virtually 100% on Alias. Assuming the product/service being purchased is not a commodity, the other dimension is does the customer have any other choice in purchasing? Looking at the Expedia example, if I give Expedia my money and get a reservation/purchase confirmation, when I get to the hotel at 11pm and they tell me they don't have any rooms left, I absolutely expect the hotel to figure out how to provide me lodging without me paying anything more. And a lot of my reasoning as a customer is "you shouldn't have signed up to work with Expedia if you weren't prepared to help your customers with issues that might have been caused by Expedia" But because I know I could always have made the reservation directly with the hotel, I am viewing the issue as an Expedia issue that the hotel is helping me with. But if my only choice was to reserve through Expedia and the hotel didn't have a reservation desk or web site, then I view this as 100% the hotel's problem. It was the hotel's choice to pick their reservations partner. I had no input into or control over that choice, and I have no other options if I want to stay at that hotel.

Unfortunately the latter is mostly the situation students find themselves in now. When I'm looking to sign up for a class with a national-caliber instructor, I'm practically only considering classes in California. Most of those guys don't give multiple classes in one state with different purchasing options; if I want to take a CA class from the guy I pretty much need to go through Alias. And that is because of the decision the instructor made to work through Alias. If that's the situation I'm in as a customer, I don't care so much about did the fine points of if instructor set up a relationship where Alias was their subcontractor, or was the instructor a subcontractor to Alias.

I personally think Craig is doing exactly the right thing for customer satisfaction/retention and his reputation, which I understand roughly as: "Go through Alias to get your money back. If you actually made a good-faith attempt to do that and didn't get anywhere, I'll give you credit to attend another class, and yes you might have to fly somewhere else to do that".

I would understand but be disappointed as a customer, if the answer was "Go through Alias to get your money back. If that fails you can enroll in another class at half price", given the realities of some instructors' businesses might not be financially capable of absorbing the full cost. Me paying half-price for something I already paid for once is better than the instructor going bankrupt and me not attending any class at all. An answer of "sorry, your contract was with Alias, not me" is a perfectly legal and valid response, just not one that is going to improve your relationship with customers. Of course some instructors might have a good enough reputation as a trainer to afford the ill will they generated with a subset of current customers using that response.

As an aside, I actually turned down booking an ECQC class with Craig a few weeks ago. When I looked into the situation, here is the answer I got from the person who arranged the class: "If you are interested you can submit payment via PayPal to this address via FRIENDS OR FAMILY." I'm sorry, I'm not about to send a "friends or family" payment to a person I know nothing about, for a service to be provided by yet another person. (I was already on the fence about the class due to worries about my age (54) or I would have followed this up with Craig directly. )

[1slow]

Never buy with friends and family, particularly from an unknown. You have no recourse. Pay the fees.