RA 9646 Provides Training to Unlicensed Real Estate Practitioners

[ADVOCACY SERIES] - The Advocacy should inject an antidote to cure the negative corporate attitude of developers towards training, professionalization, and progress.

QUESTION: Sir John, why do big developers lobby for their exemption to the RA 9646?

ISSUE: "Most developers feel that this law, with all its good intentions, only favors the existing active licensed real-estate brokers now but have neglected the existence and importance of the in-house sales organizations who are actually the ones who have played a major role in bringing Philippine real estate to where it is right now." (Alejandro S. Manalac, Eton Properties)

ANSWER: The developers lobby for their exemption in the RA 9646 because of their negative attitude towards progress.

What is wrong is the negative corporate management attitude of some developers and the misconception and misguided mentality of the officers and men of their in-house salespersons. They look at RA 9646 as a threat to their security of tenure. What they can't see is that it is an opportunity for them to become licensed and professionals through intensive training and board exam.

Developers should have positive attitude towards professionalization because it is an opportunity to upgrade staff quality, which will enhance staff dignity and corporate image. When there is a need to upgrade staff qualifications, the action item of corporations should focus on training rather than thinking about replacing their sales staff. Let's be vigilant -- the surge of demand to training must not be taken advantaged of, lobbies that would result to excessive profiteering by training providers must not be accommodated.

Training is actually one way for developers to show that they care about the advancement of career of their staff. When developers invest in training and professionalization of their staff, they are actually giving them security of tenure in the industry. A properly trained professional staff can always find another job in other companies in the same industry in case he wants to resign to seek career advancement.

If I am a President of the developer corporation, I would be conscious about increasing the competitiveness of my company and of my staff. I would be willing to invest more to train my sales managers so they will pass the brokers exam. There should be no threat of displacement within the ranks of my men. I will have them trained to pass the license exam because having a solid staff component of professional brokers and registered salespersons will improve the image of my company.

Continuous training program and qualities upgrade is the only way that assures the survival of the individual professional as well as the the survival of the company through time.

The in-house agents and salespersons of the developers are not being restricted by the law to benefit on the upgrade mandate of the RA 9646. The law is there to give them the opportunity to become professionals. The law is there to give them an industry that has a characteristic of fairness. The advocacy that I am fighting for is to encourage the unregistered in-house agents to train and pass the exam.

You know, lobbying for exemption from the law is an indecent and unethical corporate practice. Especially if they are lobbying in the office of those who implement the law instead of lobbying to those who make the law.

The current PRB-RES does not think the way I think. I can sense that the PRB-RES has no passion to advocate to protect the RESA in a manner I can. That is why their principles can easily be bought by the lobbyists who want the developers to get exemption.

Twelve days dining and wining is enough to make the current PRB-RES switch position, from implementer of the RA 9646, to becoming spokespersons of the developers who want exemption from the law. This is one of the anomalies I can smell in the current PRB-RES that is why I want them out of the system.

No comments: