Re: Article to UL
> Hello Matthew! > > I think that under US tax code the terms "non-profit" > and "not-for-profit" have special, distinct meanings > that govern how the organization must handle income > and profits. Again, not being a tax law expert, I > could not explain what the difference is. The IRS helpfully points out that "Non-profit and not-for-profit are state law concepts." (Experts and non-experts alike can find such info at http://www.irs.gov). UL derives its tax-exempt status from § 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. This is the section defines "charitable, religious, educational, scientific, . organizations" that are considered "tax-exempt". > As to your second question, I object! Objecting to UL's tax-exempt status? Frank, people who test in glass laboratories shouldn't ... Or is my understanding of TUV (current and past) in need of revision? Regards, Matt > Regards, > > Frank West > Sr. Engineer > TUV Rheinland of NA > > --- Matthew Meehan wrote: > > > > Hello Frank, > > > As my UL friends are always quick to point out, > > they > > > are not-for-profit, not non-profit. Not being > > expert, > > > I assume there is some subtle difference that is > > lots > > > on the rest of us. > > nonprofit - not established to make a profit > > (nonprofit organizations) - > > Cambridge Dictionary of American English > > (http://www.cup.cam.ac.uk/elt/dictionary/) > > By this definition, UL is a nonprofit organization. > > I assume that your > > friends (and the Post) consider profit to mean > > "money that a business earns > > above what it costs to produce and sell goods and > > services". Given the > > general usage of the prefix "non", and that UL's > > earnings are higher than > > it's costs - perhaps they feel that "not-for-profit" > > more clearly describes > > the company. > > > A more general question is, why is does UL > > continue to > > > enjoy special consideration when what they are > > doing > > > is not unique? > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Frank West > > > Sr. Engineer > > > TUV Rheinland NA > > Is it necessary to do something unique to enjoy > > "special consideration"? > > When you say "special consideration", I assume you > > are referring to UL's > > tax-exempt status. > > Do you object to UL's tax-exempt status, or covet > > it? > > > > Regards, > > Matt > > > > > > > > > > > --- Barry Ma wrote: > > > > > > > > Chaz, Why do they call UL a non-profit > > organization? > > > > Barry > > > > Anritsu Co. > > > > > > > > From: "Grasso, Charles (Chaz)" > > > > , on 11/24/99 > > 1:23 > > > > PM: > > > > > > > > Forgive a jaded old man but two things jumped > > out at > > > > me when I read the article. > > > > > > > > 1. "In many other countries, standards are set > > or > > > > approved by a government entity with industry > > > > involvement. U.S. safety standards, on the other > > > > hand, are set primarily by private industry - > > either > > > > in independent labs such as UL or by industry > > > > associations or organizations. The CPSC, an > > > > independent regulatory agency charged with > > > > protecting consumers from hazardous products, > > > > imposes federal regulations only when it > > believes > > > > industry's voluntary efforts are insufficient. " > > > > > > > > Oh Boy. Lets see look like UL is ripe for a > > > > government takeover to me!! > > > > > > > > 2. Many experts interviewed contend that UL's > > recent > > > > problems can be traced to the way the company is > > > > organized and funded - with more than > > nine-tenths of > > > > its revenue coming from companies for testing > > > > products. UL also sets industry safety standards > > - > > > > which it then measures products against - but > > does > > > > not > > > > charge for that. Lets see - if we reorganize and > > - > > > > more importantly - change the funding (a > > euphemism > > > > for taxation) then we'll all be safer!! > > > > > > > > Sorry - Just could not resist.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > __ > > > > Open your mind. Close your wallet. > > > > Free Internet Access from AltaVista. > > > > http://www.altavista.com > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > This message is coming from the emc-pstc > > discussion > > > > list. > > > > To cancel your subscription, send mail to > > > > majord...@ieee.org > > > > with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" > > > > (without the > > > > quotes). For help, send mail to > > ed.pr...@cubic.com, > > > > jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or > > > > roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list > > > > administrators). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > = > > > Frank West > > > Senior Engineer > > > TUV Rheinland of North America > > > NW/Portland OR Office > > > __ > > > Do You Yahoo!? > > > Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. All > > in one place. > > > Yahoo! Shopping: http://shopping.yahoo.com
Re: Article to UL
The timing of the article seems to coincide with tests done on a major automotive maker's products. What better way to discount the negative publicity this will cause than to discredit the source? Just food for thought. Especially, as many claim the article was more emotional than factual. - Robert - -Original Message- From: Kealey, Doug To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Monday, November 29, 1999 8:13 AM Subject: RE: Article to UL The Atlanta newspaper re-published the Washington Post article (front page above the fold) in the Sunday edition. Nothing sells papers like fear. Fear that the toys and Christmas lights in one's home may not be safe, even if they bear a safety mark. After all, why pay one of your own reporters to spread technical inaccuracies when they can rely on a reporter from another newspaper to do it for them? Doug Disclaimer: the views expressed above are my own, and are not necessarily those of Scientific-Atlanta, Inc. or of its subsidiaries or affiliates. Scientific-Atlanta shall not be responsible for views or content expressed above. -Original Message- From: Ralph Cameron [mailto:ral...@igs.net] Sent: Thursday, November 25, 1999 12:39 PM To: peterh...@aol.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: Article to UL I woudn't take the Washington Post articel seriously but unfortunately in the struggle for the media to retain readership they act as interpreters of things they don't fully understand and in the course of publishing spread technical inaccuracies. The article is only an opinion, albeit one sided. I would agree with Peter that not juch is to be gained by negative bashing. Manufacturers should voluntarily ascribe to saftey as an ethical and moral obligation and promote the profession of responsible engineering. The same should apply to EMC immunity in products. I'd like to see the Washington Post write about that. I could help them. Keep up the objective comments, they lead to progress. Ralph Cameron Independant EMC Consulting for suppression of consumer products lacking EMC. (After sale). - Original Message - From: To: Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 1999 8:08 PM Subject: Article to UL > > Hello group, > > It seems to me that the article in Washington Post, was written by someone > who really had not done their homework. It sounded as the article was > criticizing UL for not doing proper testing or not being able to write their > standards adequately. Like most of the people in the group, I am certainly > not a fan of UL for various reasons that are outside the scope of this > particular subject, but one has to remember that almost majority of the > standards are written with manufacturers directly involved during the > generation of the standard. Obviously those of us who are being represented > in various standard committee we who are responsible for writing the > standard, try to influence the standard as much as we can in our industry > favor and test houses such as UL, CSA , BSI, more or less go along with it. > As for testing is concerned, all UL engineers as well as their counterparts > in other test houses only test the product to the clauses of the standard and > they are not allowed to go any further. On top of that, the way that any of > these standard are written it is widely open to interpretation so we as test > engineers always try to argue with the test house engineer to try to avoid > any failure. Another point to bear in mind is that the test house engineers > are only human like the rest of us and can make mistake or even overlook at > some points. Last but not least, most of us have seen a certified product > been slightly modified/altered by someone in our company for an unknown > reason and still bears the safety mark without even informing any of the test > houses concerned . So I believe we should look at the root casue of the > problem and try to improve the situation by > (a) be honest with the test houses during testing. > (b) by trying to encourage our designers to make the product almost fool > proof. > © do addition in-house testing that exceeds the requirements of the standard > (d) by being a truly responsible manufacturer. > > Thanks > Peter > - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: Article to UL
The Atlanta newspaper re-published the Washington Post article (front page above the fold) in the Sunday edition. Nothing sells papers like fear. Fear that the toys and Christmas lights in one's home may not be safe, even if they bear a safety mark. After all, why pay one of your own reporters to spread technical inaccuracies when they can rely on a reporter from another newspaper to do it for them? Doug Disclaimer: the views expressed above are my own, and are not necessarily those of Scientific-Atlanta, Inc. or of its subsidiaries or affiliates. Scientific-Atlanta shall not be responsible for views or content expressed above. -Original Message- From: Ralph Cameron [mailto:ral...@igs.net] Sent: Thursday, November 25, 1999 12:39 PM To: peterh...@aol.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: Article to UL I woudn't take the Washington Post articel seriously but unfortunately in the struggle for the media to retain readership they act as interpreters of things they don't fully understand and in the course of publishing spread technical inaccuracies. The article is only an opinion, albeit one sided. I would agree with Peter that not juch is to be gained by negative bashing. Manufacturers should voluntarily ascribe to saftey as an ethical and moral obligation and promote the profession of responsible engineering. The same should apply to EMC immunity in products. I'd like to see the Washington Post write about that. I could help them. Keep up the objective comments, they lead to progress. Ralph Cameron Independant EMC Consulting for suppression of consumer products lacking EMC. (After sale). - Original Message - From: To: Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 1999 8:08 PM Subject: Article to UL > > Hello group, > > It seems to me that the article in Washington Post, was written by someone > who really had not done their homework. It sounded as the article was > criticizing UL for not doing proper testing or not being able to write their > standards adequately. Like most of the people in the group, I am certainly > not a fan of UL for various reasons that are outside the scope of this > particular subject, but one has to remember that almost majority of the > standards are written with manufacturers directly involved during the > generation of the standard. Obviously those of us who are being represented > in various standard committee we who are responsible for writing the > standard, try to influence the standard as much as we can in our industry > favor and test houses such as UL, CSA , BSI, more or less go along with it. > As for testing is concerned, all UL engineers as well as their counterparts > in other test houses only test the product to the clauses of the standard and > they are not allowed to go any further. On top of that, the way that any of > these standard are written it is widely open to interpretation so we as test > engineers always try to argue with the test house engineer to try to avoid > any failure. Another point to bear in mind is that the test house engineers > are only human like the rest of us and can make mistake or even overlook at > some points. Last but not least, most of us have seen a certified product > been slightly modified/altered by someone in our company for an unknown > reason and still bears the safety mark without even informing any of the test > houses concerned . So I believe we should look at the root casue of the > problem and try to improve the situation by > (a) be honest with the test houses during testing. > (b) by trying to encourage our designers to make the product almost fool > proof. > © do addition in-house testing that exceeds the requirements of the standard > (d) by being a truly responsible manufacturer. > > Thanks > Peter > > - > This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. > To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org > with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the > quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, > jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or > roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). > > > - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Re: Article to UL
Hello Matthew! I think that under US tax code the terms "non-profit" and "not-for-profit" have special, distinct meanings that govern how the organization must handle income and profits. Again, not being a tax law expert, I could not explain what the difference is. As to your second question, I object! Regards, Frank West Sr. Engineer TUV Rheinland of NA --- Matthew Meehan wrote: > > Hello Frank, > > As my UL friends are always quick to point out, > they > > are not-for-profit, not non-profit. Not being > expert, > > I assume there is some subtle difference that is > lots > > on the rest of us. > nonprofit - not established to make a profit > (nonprofit organizations) - > Cambridge Dictionary of American English > (http://www.cup.cam.ac.uk/elt/dictionary/) > By this definition, UL is a nonprofit organization. > I assume that your > friends (and the Post) consider profit to mean > "money that a business earns > above what it costs to produce and sell goods and > services". Given the > general usage of the prefix "non", and that UL's > earnings are higher than > it's costs - perhaps they feel that "not-for-profit" > more clearly describes > the company. > > A more general question is, why is does UL > continue to > > enjoy special consideration when what they are > doing > > is not unique? > > > > Regards, > > > > Frank West > > Sr. Engineer > > TUV Rheinland NA > Is it necessary to do something unique to enjoy > "special consideration"? > When you say "special consideration", I assume you > are referring to UL's > tax-exempt status. > Do you object to UL's tax-exempt status, or covet > it? > > Regards, > Matt > > > > > > --- Barry Ma wrote: > > > > > > Chaz, Why do they call UL a non-profit > organization? > > > Barry > > > Anritsu Co. > > > > > > From: "Grasso, Charles (Chaz)" > > > , on 11/24/99 > 1:23 > > > PM: > > > > > > Forgive a jaded old man but two things jumped > out at > > > me when I read the article. > > > > > > 1. "In many other countries, standards are set > or > > > approved by a government entity with industry > > > involvement. U.S. safety standards, on the other > > > hand, are set primarily by private industry - > either > > > in independent labs such as UL or by industry > > > associations or organizations. The CPSC, an > > > independent regulatory agency charged with > > > protecting consumers from hazardous products, > > > imposes federal regulations only when it > believes > > > industry's voluntary efforts are insufficient. " > > > > > > Oh Boy. Lets see look like UL is ripe for a > > > government takeover to me!! > > > > > > 2. Many experts interviewed contend that UL's > recent > > > problems can be traced to the way the company is > > > organized and funded - with more than > nine-tenths of > > > its revenue coming from companies for testing > > > products. UL also sets industry safety standards > - > > > which it then measures products against - but > does > > > not > > > charge for that. Lets see - if we reorganize and > - > > > more importantly - change the funding (a > euphemism > > > for taxation) then we'll all be safer!! > > > > > > Sorry - Just could not resist.. > > > > > > > > > > > > __ > > > Open your mind. Close your wallet. > > > Free Internet Access from AltaVista. > > > http://www.altavista.com > > > > > > > > > - > > > This message is coming from the emc-pstc > discussion > > > list. > > > To cancel your subscription, send mail to > > > majord...@ieee.org > > > with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" > > > (without the > > > quotes). For help, send mail to > ed.pr...@cubic.com, > > > jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or > > > roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list > > > administrators). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > = > > Frank West > > Senior Engineer > > TUV Rheinland of North America > > NW/Portland OR Office > > __ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. All > in one place. > > Yahoo! Shopping: http://shopping.yahoo.com > > > > - > > This message is coming from the emc-pstc > discussion list. > > To cancel your subscription, send mail to > majord...@ieee.org > > with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" > (without the > > quotes). For help, send mail to > ed.pr...@cubic.com, > > jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or > > roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list > administrators). > > > > > > > > > - > This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion > list. > To cancel your subscription, send mail to > majord...@ieee.org > with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" > (without the > quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, > jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or > roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list > administrators). > > > = Frank West Senior Engineer TUV Rheinland of North America NW/Portland OR Office _
Re: Article to UL
Hello Frank, > As my UL friends are always quick to point out, they > are not-for-profit, not non-profit. Not being expert, > I assume there is some subtle difference that is lots > on the rest of us. nonprofit - not established to make a profit (nonprofit organizations) - Cambridge Dictionary of American English (http://www.cup.cam.ac.uk/elt/dictionary/) By this definition, UL is a nonprofit organization. I assume that your friends (and the Post) consider profit to mean "money that a business earns above what it costs to produce and sell goods and services". Given the general usage of the prefix "non", and that UL's earnings are higher than it's costs - perhaps they feel that "not-for-profit" more clearly describes the company. > A more general question is, why is does UL continue to > enjoy special consideration when what they are doing > is not unique? > > Regards, > > Frank West > Sr. Engineer > TUV Rheinland NA Is it necessary to do something unique to enjoy "special consideration"? When you say "special consideration", I assume you are referring to UL's tax-exempt status. Do you object to UL's tax-exempt status, or covet it? Regards, Matt > --- Barry Ma wrote: > > > > Chaz, Why do they call UL a non-profit organization? > > Barry > > Anritsu Co. > > > > From: "Grasso, Charles (Chaz)" > > , on 11/24/99 1:23 > > PM: > > > > Forgive a jaded old man but two things jumped out at > > me when I read the article. > > > > 1. "In many other countries, standards are set or > > approved by a government entity with industry > > involvement. U.S. safety standards, on the other > > hand, are set primarily by private industry - either > > in independent labs such as UL or by industry > > associations or organizations. The CPSC, an > > independent regulatory agency charged with > > protecting consumers from hazardous products, > > imposes federal regulations only when it believes > > industry's voluntary efforts are insufficient. " > > > > Oh Boy. Lets see look like UL is ripe for a > > government takeover to me!! > > > > 2. Many experts interviewed contend that UL's recent > > problems can be traced to the way the company is > > organized and funded - with more than nine-tenths of > > its revenue coming from companies for testing > > products. UL also sets industry safety standards - > > which it then measures products against - but does > > not > > charge for that. Lets see - if we reorganize and - > > more importantly - change the funding (a euphemism > > for taxation) then we'll all be safer!! > > > > Sorry - Just could not resist.. > > > > > > > __ > > Open your mind. Close your wallet. > > Free Internet Access from AltaVista. > > http://www.altavista.com > > > > > > - > > This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion > > list. > > To cancel your subscription, send mail to > > majord...@ieee.org > > with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" > > (without the > > quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, > > jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or > > roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list > > administrators). > > > > > > > > > = > Frank West > Senior Engineer > TUV Rheinland of North America > NW/Portland OR Office > __ > Do You Yahoo!? > Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. All in one place. > Yahoo! Shopping: http://shopping.yahoo.com > > - > This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. > To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org > with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the > quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, > jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or > roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). > > > - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Re: Article to UL
I woudn't take the Washington Post articel seriously but unfortunately in the struggle for the media to retain readership they act as interpreters of things they don't fully understand and in the course of publishing spread technical inaccuracies. The article is only an opinion, albeit one sided. I would agree with Peter that not juch is to be gained by negative bashing. Manufacturers should voluntarily ascribe to saftey as an ethical and moral obligation and promote the profession of responsible engineering. The same should apply to EMC immunity in products. I'd like to see the Washington Post write about that. I could help them. Keep up the objective comments, they lead to progress. Ralph Cameron Independant EMC Consulting for suppression of consumer products lacking EMC. (After sale). - Original Message - From: To: Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 1999 8:08 PM Subject: Article to UL > > Hello group, > > It seems to me that the article in Washington Post, was written by someone > who really had not done their homework. It sounded as the article was > criticizing UL for not doing proper testing or not being able to write their > standards adequately. Like most of the people in the group, I am certainly > not a fan of UL for various reasons that are outside the scope of this > particular subject, but one has to remember that almost majority of the > standards are written with manufacturers directly involved during the > generation of the standard. Obviously those of us who are being represented > in various standard committee we who are responsible for writing the > standard, try to influence the standard as much as we can in our industry > favor and test houses such as UL, CSA , BSI, more or less go along with it. > As for testing is concerned, all UL engineers as well as their counterparts > in other test houses only test the product to the clauses of the standard and > they are not allowed to go any further. On top of that, the way that any of > these standard are written it is widely open to interpretation so we as test > engineers always try to argue with the test house engineer to try to avoid > any failure. Another point to bear in mind is that the test house engineers > are only human like the rest of us and can make mistake or even overlook at > some points. Last but not least, most of us have seen a certified product > been slightly modified/altered by someone in our company for an unknown > reason and still bears the safety mark without even informing any of the test > houses concerned . So I believe we should look at the root casue of the > problem and try to improve the situation by > (a) be honest with the test houses during testing. > (b) by trying to encourage our designers to make the product almost fool > proof. > © do addition in-house testing that exceeds the requirements of the standard > (d) by being a truly responsible manufacturer. > > Thanks > Peter > > - > This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. > To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org > with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the > quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, > jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or > roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). > > > - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
re: Article to UL
As my UL friends are always quick to point out, they are not-for-profit, not non-profit. Not being expert, I assume there is some subtle difference that is lots on the rest of us. A more general question is, why is does UL continue to enjoy special consideration when what they are doing is not unique? Regards, Frank West Sr. Engineer TUV Rheinland NA --- Barry Ma wrote: > > Chaz, Why do they call UL a non-profit organization? > Barry > Anritsu Co. > > From: "Grasso, Charles (Chaz)" > , on 11/24/99 1:23 > PM: > > Forgive a jaded old man but two things jumped out at > me when I read the article. > > 1. "In many other countries, standards are set or > approved by a government entity with industry > involvement. U.S. safety standards, on the other > hand, are set primarily by private industry - either > in independent labs such as UL or by industry > associations or organizations. The CPSC, an > independent regulatory agency charged with > protecting consumers from hazardous products, > imposes federal regulations only when it believes > industry's voluntary efforts are insufficient. " > > Oh Boy. Lets see look like UL is ripe for a > government takeover to me!! > > 2. Many experts interviewed contend that UL's recent > problems can be traced to the way the company is > organized and funded - with more than nine-tenths of > its revenue coming from companies for testing > products. UL also sets industry safety standards - > which it then measures products against - but does > not > charge for that. Lets see - if we reorganize and - > more importantly - change the funding (a euphemism > for taxation) then we'll all be safer!! > > Sorry - Just could not resist.. > > > __ > Open your mind. Close your wallet. > Free Internet Access from AltaVista. > http://www.altavista.com > > > - > This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion > list. > To cancel your subscription, send mail to > majord...@ieee.org > with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" > (without the > quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, > jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or > roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list > administrators). > > > = Frank West Senior Engineer TUV Rheinland of North America NW/Portland OR Office __ Do You Yahoo!? Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. All in one place. Yahoo! Shopping: http://shopping.yahoo.com - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Re: Article to UL
Hi Barry: > Chaz, Why do they call UL a non-profit organization? UL, as a corporation, is chartered as a "not-for-profit" organization. This means that it cannot distribute retained earnings to the owners. Instead, it uses retained earnings to add to endowment funds for financing future activities. Indeed, there is a limit as to the magnitude of retained earnings. One year, back in the '70's, UL rebated funds to all of its clients proportional to their UL expenditure because the UL retained earnings exceeded the legal amount! Apparently, UL has some sort of tax advantage as a result of its not-for-profit status. UL does not have a board of directors, but has a Board of Trustees. I like to draw an analogy with a church. The question is: Who are the "owners?" The answer is: The Board of Trustees. The Board decides the acquisition, use, and disposition of the assets of the Corporation. Insofar as its daily operations, UL is managed just as is a profit-making enterprise. Best regards, Rich - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
re: Article to UL
Chaz, Why do they call UL a non-profit organization? Barry Anritsu Co. From: "Grasso, Charles (Chaz)" , on 11/24/99 1:23 PM: Forgive a jaded old man but two things jumped out at me when I read the article. 1. "In many other countries, standards are set or approved by a government entity with industry involvement. U.S. safety standards, on the other hand, are set primarily by private industry - either in independent labs such as UL or by industry associations or organizations. The CPSC, an independent regulatory agency charged with protecting consumers from hazardous products, imposes federal regulations only when it believes industry's voluntary efforts are insufficient. " Oh Boy. Lets see look like UL is ripe for a government takeover to me!! 2. Many experts interviewed contend that UL's recent problems can be traced to the way the company is organized and funded - with more than nine-tenths of its revenue coming from companies for testing products. UL also sets industry safety standards - which it then measures products against - but does not charge for that. Lets see - if we reorganize and - more importantly - change the funding (a euphemism for taxation) then we'll all be safer!! Sorry - Just could not resist.. __ Open your mind. Close your wallet. Free Internet Access from AltaVista. http://www.altavista.com - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
