text:
3-Point Pallet Fork, 2,000 Lb. Capacity
This 3-point pallet fork with a 2,000 lb. capacity can also be used as a hay bale mover. Constructed of heavy duty steel, the pallet mover has Category 2 pins.Ships via motor freight service.
This pallet fork can be used to haul hay, feed, fencing materials, and boxes of fruit or vegetables. It has a 2,000 lbs. capacity.
It is made from heavy duty square and rectangular steel tube construction with reinforced corners and beveled ends for easy pallet loading. The frame is 35 inches high and the forks are 45 inches long. The bale mover has Category 2 hitch pins installed.
- Can be used to haul hay, feed, fencing material, boxes of fruit or vegetables
- 2,000 lb. load capacity
- 38 inches high frame and 44-1/2 inch long forks.
- Heavy duty square and rectangular steel tube construction, 2 inch by 4 inch hollow steel
- Reinforced corners
- Beveled ends for easy pallet loading
- Category 2 hitch pins- can not be changed to cat. 1 pins
- Forks are 33 inches measured from the outside and 24 3/4 inches inside of forks.
Shipping Information
Your order is important to us and we will strive to process it as quickly as possible. Most in-stock items are shipped within 2-4 business days and typically deliver in 5-7 business days. In-stock items may ship from multiple locations and can arrive on separate days. Heavy or bulky items will ship via Freight/Truck Service and will take 8-10 business days for delivery. For those immediate product needs, we do offer at an additional cost, express service from UPS and Motor freight.
Shipping costs are determined by item weight and your zipcode. Once you have entered your shipping address, city, state, and zip code into checkout, your shipping total will be calculated and available for review. Please see the shipping map below as a guide.
Return Information
Your satisfaction is our priority. If for any reason you are not satisfied with a purchase from Agri Supply, we will gladly refund your money, or exchange the item, or fix it should it break. A minimum one-year warranty applies to all non-perishable items, parts and service from Agri Supply, and all hand tools sold by Agri Supply have a lifetime warranty, regardless of the length of the manufacturer's warranty. See our Agri Supply Guarantee for more details.
To return an item... give us a call at 1-800-345-0169, or visit one of our 8 retail stores near you, and one of our friendly customer service representatives, or store employees, will be glad to assist you.
Standard UPS Ground Shipping Map -
The above shipping chart applies to UPS ground shipments to the 48 contiguous states only. Please call 1-800-345-0169 for timing on shipments to Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico, thank you!
Review Summary
- Overall Rating: None
- Be the first to review this product
Customer Reviews
No Reviews
May We Suggest
- Add to Cart More Bale Movers, Forks, & Carry Alls More Farm Machinery & Tractor Implements More Information
3-Point Penetration Type Bale Spear#48328
- Add to Cart More Bale Movers, Forks, & Carry Alls More Farm Machinery & Tractor Implements More Farm Machinery Parts More Information
Tapered Bale Spear, 49", Nut Included#49601
- Add to Cart More Bale Movers, Forks, & Carry Alls More Farm Machinery & Tractor Implements More Information
Loader Hay Spear Penetration Type#48327
- Add to Cart More Bale Movers, Forks, & Carry Alls More Farm Machinery Parts More Information
Replacement Bale Spear Nut, M28x1.5#52029


text:
Why is this ironic? Well, mostly because Windows-using friends of mine got their copies of Civ IV today.
Now, there's nothing new about the sad state of Mac gaming. It has been a punchline for a long time now, and one of the biggest talking points Windows users love to throw in our faces (also one-button mice, but never mind that). Mac gaming, to use the technical industry insider term, bites.
Looking at the What's New In Mac page for Aspyr.com, the five featured 'new' games at the top of the page are (with their accompanying real release dates in the rest of the computing world, according to gamespot.com):
* The Sims 2 (2004)
* Stubbs the Zombie (2005)
* Sim City 4 (2003)
* Doom 3 (2004)
* Tiger Woods PGA Tour 2005 (2004)
Stubbs is only out for Xbox at the moment, so there's an actual new one. Oh, and Tiger Woods PGA Tour 2006 was released last month, by the way.
Not to pick on Aspyr too much, but again, nothing new here. It is saddening for someone who remembers the heady days of Marathon, the original SimCity... heck, The Ancient Art of War was the very first Mac program I ever used back in 1985. Saddening, but not news.
Nowadays, I'm probably more likely to pick up a Playstation 2 controller if I want to play a 'modern' game. It's just pragmatism, really, after years of trotting out the old 'At least we have the big games, even if they are 6 months late!' argument. Mac gaming might have the quality games (although even that is arguable), but quantity-wise, there is no comparison.
There is some hope to be found in open-source games, but not for the latest greatest. And of course there are individual titles here and there that are joyfully Mac-only, but not like the envy-inducing Marathon days. (A side note, which would you rather have had released this year: a Doom movie, or a Marathon movie? Well, there's always Halo. ;)
Sure, we could make the point that the lack of games means we can be way more productive sans distraction, but what do y'all think? Can Mac gaming be resurrected? Is it really that big of a deal? Isn't gaming a barometer for the health of a computing platform?
Robert Daeley is a writer and programmer in Southern California. By day he is a mild-mannered server administrator and website developer; by night, in addition to his super-hero duties, he cooks, bikes, hikes, cheers on the Dodgers, and writes fiction.
oreillynet.com Copyright © 2006 O'Reilly Media, Inc.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Adam@Home by Rob Harrell
- November 19, 2012
- From Beginning
- Previous feature
- Next feature
- Current
Comments (7) (Please sign in to comment)
Adam's right, it's virtually impossible to do. The good news is the stuff is supposed to last a while.
Spending….reminds me of my other half. Substitute electronics for hardware.
warehouse shopping is such a great con – buy Twice As Much for $2 less. That and the Premium Membership REBATES almost covers half of the Membership fee renewal – great stuff.
I'm the same way when I go into Lowe's Tool Dept. I always come out of there with something that I think I can't do without!
We do warehouse shopping once a month for things like vitamins and food products and we definitely save our membership fee and much more. Have to do your research.
Wow, thought it was just me…
And for that reason my stepson calls BJ's "the Hundred Dollar Store."
- Refresh Comments.
You must be signed in to make a comment.


text:
Jack Werner Stauffacher papers, 1956-1958
Stauffacher, Jack Werner, b. 1920
Designer, Publisher, Typographer
Active in San Francisco, Calif.
Collection size: 51 items (on partial microfilm reel)
Collection Summary: 16 letters between Stauffacher and Gordon Cook, written while Stauffacher was in Italy researching the history of printing, and 2 letters from Henry Miller to Stauffacher concerning Miller's books: Smile at the Foot of the Ladder, Quiet Days in Clichy, and The World of Sex. Also included are 32 unsigned prints and drawings by Cook for a collaborative book with Stauffacher, and a photograph of Cook.
Biographical/Historical Note: Typographer, publisher, and designer; San Francisco, Calif. Born 1920. Stauffacher has collaborated with many Bay Area writers and artists, including Hassel Smith, Gordon Onslow-Ford, Sam Francis, Gordon Cook, and Henry Miller, in the creation of notable publications from his Greenwood Press.
Donated 1986 by Jack Werner Stauffacher.
How to Use this Collection
- Microfilm reel 4046 available at Archives of American Art offices and through interlibrary loan.
- Use of original papers requires an appointment and is limited to the Archives' Washington, D.C., Research Center. Microfilmed materials must be consulted on microfilm. Contact Reference Services for more information.
- For more information on using the Archives' resources, see the FAQ or Ask Us.


text:
Kicking Up the Dust Before It Settles
We are good at outrage. Indeed, as a profession we reside in Tunbridge Wells and spend our time snorting through our moustaches. So, the cries of betrayal, infamy (infamy, they've all got it infamy) and doom are not unexpected. Nevertheless, there are some things to be said.
First, we are actually entitled to assess the arguments advanced by the way they are advanced. I have repeatedly said that we need to be professional about this. I will deal later with matters that have prompted me to think I have got some things wrong, but this isn't one and I am happy to see that the CBA is (now) adopting the same approach. The reality is that advocates who shout, threaten, insult and coerce are crap advocates. It is legitimate to say, not simply that personal vilification is unacceptable (a statement so obvious that it should be unnecessary), but that such an approach calls into question whether those adopting it have any right or claim to lead the Bar. Who wants leaders like that? What qualities do they bring that makes anyone want to follow them?
Secondly, we did not do this for solicitors. Not because we don't care but because we can't. The solicitors have chosen to work at the new rates (only half the cut now being implemented, although no one seems to have acknowledged that the CBA did that too). The proposition that we should in some way take up the slack on their behalf is both bonkers and insulting. Bonkers because how on earth could we refuse to work in the light of the concessions made to us? Insulting because of the casual assumption that solicitors don't want to work but have to. That may be true, but it may equally be true that solicitors have decided they can deal with this in another way. I don't know, and suggesting that Twitter is a reliable source for the views of a profession of more than 100,000 people is not a serious stance.
Thirdly, the reason it is being said we should do this for solicitors is that otherwise they will go bankrupt and we will not get the briefs, or that – slightly irrationally – if we don't strike for them then when they don't go bankrupt (leaving the inconsistency aside for now) they won't brief us but will take the work themselves. Both these arguments strike me as demented.
If solicitors' firms go out of business the work will still be there. Whether it is done by us or HCAs it will have to be done. The proposition must therefore be that the surviving firms will be inclined – for economic reasons – to keep the work in house. That may be accurate but, if so, it simply reflects the realities of competition. The answer – as it has always been – is to be better than HCAs. The argument makes the assumption that being better is not enough, because these particular firms will brief HCAs despite the fact that they aren't good enough, simply to keep the money.
If that is correct – and it may be – then I would expect the solicitors for whom we are asked to strike to pledge not to use HCAs at all. Otherwise we are sacrificing ourselves to them and actually improving their chances of not giving us work, by keeping them going so that they can use HCAs. That isn't happening. Instead the complaint is that we did a deal which does not assist a group of other people who are not acting on their own account, might not be as affected as some of them say they are, but will use our assistance to compete with us (unfairly in my view) come what may. Thanks, but not thanks – if I want to commit hari kiri I'll do it in the traditional way by disembowelling myself in front of Chris Grayling. At least then I might spoil his supper.
When one then considers that the people who allegedly need us have spent a considerable amount of time and inventiveness in coming up with way to abuse Lithman and threaten that they will never instruct counsel again, one is forced to ask 'why bother'? If we don't save them they won't brief us. If we do save them they won't brief us. If they go bankrupt they won't brief us. When will they brief us? If we save them and it suits them and they can't make money out of it. None of those 3 things are guaranteed, even if I never worked again.
I don't blame the solicitors for competing. They are allowed to. I complain that – as a number of them told me on Twitter – they have the clients first, because that suggests that they know that the only basis the client accepts an HCA is that they don't get a chance at a barrister. But that's the system and we have to deal with it. I do, however, suggest that those commercial realities suggest that striking for solicitors is like screwing for virginity. If this deal does mean less work for the Bar then the answer is not to carry on striking. The answer is to develop a strategy that helps us avoid that position – a proper, gold plated, top rated, quality assurance scheme that only the best attain. Depressingly, the rejectionist wing of the CBA are also the quality scheme refuseniks who need no authentication from anyone because they know how good they are. I keep being told we haven't been so united since 1984 but that really isn't a reason to behave as if we're still there.
Fourthly, when I wanted to debate work to rule – a method by which we could resist Grayling for months – or no returns of only some classes of work – which would protect the junior bar – I don't recall anyone from the CBA's then support group saying that this was a fair way to treat the membership. We were offered a straight choice of work or no work. We were offered a straight choice of no returns and days of action or not. There was not even an attempt to divide those two things up, even though it is a common view that no returns worked and days of action didn't. That wasn't fair or sensible then, because it wasn't democratic. Democracy is debate, not a choice between 2 options – one of which is unacceptable. The CBA survey was designed to persuade people to say yes to no work because the only alternative offered was to do nothing. The proposition that we could suggest other things that no one else would know about and – therefore – round which debate and support could not coalesce – was insulting and, frankly, thick. Nor was the 28th March an important date. The matter was urgent because the CBA said it was and for no other reason.
Nonetheless we did it. Now, when what has happened is not to the liking of those cheering for that rather totalitarian way of designing a plebiscite, we need an EGM and a 'democratic' ballot. I'm not saying that's hypocrisy – I'm just struggling with what else to call it. And the ballot isn't an open debate – it's just question 1 of the questionnaire, with all its faults.
In reality this is foot stamping. It doesn't even engage with the debate – the calls started long before we were told why the decision was made and still don't ask what the MoJ will do if we renege. This is a group of people for whom only one answer is acceptable and, if they don't get it, it isn't because of realities, or because others may legitimately hold different views – it's because only they really know the answers and the rest of us are simpletons who shouldn't be allowed to make decisions, or scabs and traitors who have sold us out. The language is redolent of the Labour Party of the 1980s at its most moronic.
I have a view about people like that. I don't want them making decisions for me, because they are likely to make the wrong decision. Here, when they don't even seek to know the consequences of what they propose, that view is reinforced in spades.
Fifthly, I've read what Lithman said. It sounds right. No one has sought to say otherwise. The only challenge to it consists of a message of doom which – for the reasons I've set out above – isn't answered by refusing to work when we have been told the cuts have gone. For the people bashing this scenario out it is important to be as pessimistic as possible. Their own case is that the savings will be made by the existing cuts. Nothing will happen until after an election and a year. If it is right – as I and (until yesterday) they believe it to be – there will be no need for further cuts. Nonetheless, to get their way, our militant tendency now reverse themselves. Yesterday we wanted a delay. Today a delay is no good because it will happen anyway. Yesterday there was no need for cuts. Today – although the cuts aren't happening – they will happen, in a year. Oh what a crystal ball is this. Yesterday the CBA were brave fighters going to win for us through their valour and wisdom. Today they are spineless cowards – whoops, no insults, let me correct myself – idiots who cannot see the foolishness of what they have done.
The conclusion I draw when someone will say anything that suits, is that they are wrong.
Two more things. First, I don't want to do VHCCs and as far as I can see, I don't have to. So I won't.
Secondly, although I opposed the tactics and criticised the handling, I have learned that unity can be more important than the detailed measures. That doesn't mean I am happy with what we nearly did, because I think it would haver destroyed us and I reserve the right to say so. But it means that I acknowledge that there are times when those arguments ought to give way. I think I got it wrong. I hope I judge it better if we have to do it again – and we may. But that only applies when the leadership is good, not when it's bad.
Finally, the Circuit Leaders and the Bar Council helped the profession to confront the LC and the MoJ and they blinked and backed down. What a great thing to know. Even if you are pessimistic that is important. They played a blinder and we should be grateful – if we aren't snorting into our moustache in Tunbridge Wells.
March 28, 2014 4:10 pm
Simon. Yet again we find ourselves at loggerheads. I can accept that we are probably never going to agree about very much, but when you start your piece with "The reality is that advocates who shout, threaten, insult and coerce are crap advocates" and then, in the same piece, you describe the position of those who disagree with you using terms such as 'demented', 'thick' and even 'moronic', I feel the need to ask whether you wrote the whole piece yourself in one sitting. Now, it may be that it wasn't me, and the views I have expressed, that you had in mind when you used those terms, and I am just wearing a cap that you would say just happens to fit me, but if you want to have a reasoned debate without resort to such language, I for one am 'up for it'. If you want to engage in a slanging match, have it with someone else.
Simon Myerson permalinkMarch 28, 2014 4:31 pm
I agree that we are not going to agree. I am not sure that I agree that my words – which are used with at least a sense of fun – are quite the same as some of what I have read on twitter. That, I made clear, is not from you.
I am happy for you to respond to the substantive points I made. It may be that the language I used – and I did write it all in one sitting – is not entirely helpful, and if you are offended then I apologise. It was not aimed at you – except for the bit about prognostications of gloom, which is, I think, fairly described as your stance.
I like you and I respect your integrity, even though I think you're wrong.
March 28, 2014 4:56 pm
Oh dear.
It is all very easy being sanctimonious and patronising with a cloak of silk which may well explain why the leaders of the CBA and the circuit leaders (similarly cloaked) made such a terrible mistake. Very few firms can afford to have criminal silks in house so, unlike juniors, the silk fee is pretty much ring fenced.
The years of endless cuts have taken a terrible toll on the criminal bar. Have a look at the London Gazette where you will see that on average a member of the bar is being bankrupted every week by HMRC. These aren't under 7 year call practitioners. These are people in their 40s or 50s with established practices who have now lost everything. There s anecdotal evidence of members of the bar who cannot meet their monthly mortgage instalments.
These people are nearer the end of their careers than the beginning. The cuts, which have been relentless but usually brought in with little or no warning, prevent any long term planning. Not because people are doing less work or lower quality work, but because arbitrarily the same work is valued at a fraction today of what it was yesterday.
On Thursday of last week criminal solicitors took a hammering. Crown court litigator fees were cut by what was said to be 8.75%. I calculate (from a raft of real world cases) that in what are no fixed fee cases the cut is more like 17%. Police station fees (for going out in the middle of the night) have been cut by 8.75%. I don't know what the cut in magistrates court fees but there were cuts.
The "average" criminal firm has been cut by at least 8.75% but in all probability more. To many firms it represents their profit margin. As well as those weekly bankruptcies, almost every week news breaks of a criminal firm that has gone to the wall, e.g Swinburne Jackson (Gateshead), Andrews Angel (Ilford & Durham) Meldrums (South Hertfordshire). The demise of Medrums put 55 people out of work.
The solicitors are faced with yet more cuts next year.
Where are they supposed to get the money from to cover these losses ? In the absence of a flood of new clients (and common sense tells us that that isn't going to happen), the only way that any firm can hope to survive is by bringing the crown court advocate's fee into the firm. Not for riotous living but just to survive.
The current struggle was trumpeted as being about "saving UK justice". We were all "in it together". Barristers and solicitors standing side by side. It was not about pay.
And suddenly, without warning, it is over. As soon as the Bar get a good offer on pay sand is kicked in the faces of solicitors. Those same solicitors who send their work to the junior bar. Or rather, sent it to the junior bar.
There is a very very real prospect that the junior bar (those who do not have silk cloaks and not just those under seven years call) will now lose their work to in house advocates.
Like him or hate him, Ian West is the one who got it right. Taking the foot off Grayling's throat now outs the future of the junior bar in real jeopardy. Work will drop off fast as solicitors feel the impact of last week's fee cuts. Ian probably talks with the benefit of experience – he will have suddenly found work drying up from a firm, not because he isn't up to the job but because it has gone to an in house advocate. Perhaps an HCA who has 20+ years less experience than him and considerably less ability.
It would be interesting Simon to hear: (I) why you think what Ian said in his resignation letter is wrong; (ii) what you think the impact is upon solicitors of last week's fee cuts; and (iii) how you think solicitors will make up the fee income that they have lost from those cuts.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
John Hammond permalinkMarch 28, 2014 9:16 pm
I am but a clerk, but my god, if there was any aspect of this deal designed to divide the membership then it has certainly succeeded. Focus has very quickly shifted to infighting instead of addressing our real attacker and this has happened entirely in accordance with their timetable. This is becoming shameful. Sorry!
Angry Northerner permalinkMarch 29, 2014 2:38 pm
If the proposed changes to solicitors rates/terms of work remain then one way or another the junior criminal bar will perish. Either firms will survive by taking most of their work in house or they will be replaced by megafirms who do the work in house already. The loss of our supplier base is a bigger threat then the reduction in AGFs. This will particularly hit the most junior end of the bar and it seems to me to be erroneous to suggest that the "deal" protects them.
The only way the bar can survive is by ensuring that these proposals are withdrawn in full. It is unfortunate, to put it mildly, that solicitors are apparently unable/unwilling to fight for themselves. It would be nice if they looked at our unity and resolve and followed our example, but it seems they will not. My initial response to the deal was to take the view that if solicitors could not fight their own battles that was their problem. The reality is that it is our problem too.
It is not good saying that we can survive by being better than solicitors. Quality doesn't come into it. Solicitors will be forced by the need to survive to use HCAs even when they are not up to the job. That is one of the reasons these proposals are damaging to the criminal justice system. There is anecdotal evidence that some solicitors are already telling clients that they are no longer allowed an independent barrister and that they have to choose an in house lawyer.
This offer is a very good one for Mr Grayling. He retains all the cuts to solicitors fees and the cuts to VHCCs. All he loses is the 6% cut (as he believes it to be) to AGFs. Given that a fair chunk of the £220m saving will happen as a result of reductions not taken in top account by the MoJ, he gets his savings and the bar goes back to work…except that there is unlikely to be any. I don't suppose that concerns Mr Grayling in the least. It is therefor not surprising that he wanted to bounce the CBA into accepting. His tactic is that use by car salesmen: "I've just spoken to the manager and we have an extra special offer provided you buy the car today". It was rather naive to think that the offer would go away if we didn't accept it.
March 29, 2014 4:10 pm
Simon, respectfully, this is casuistry. No analysis of the deal and its merits is required. One only needs to consider whether it was correct for our leadership to meet with the MoJ alone, cutting out the CLSA and LCCSA. It was not and the principle of unity, which we have all been advocating and celebrating for the last year, was at once extinguished. No deal, was worth sacrificing that principle. Imagine if it had been the other way around. That those in the room did not anticipate this fall out is concerning. What is even more concerning is that perhaps they did anticipate it and yet it did not deter them.
As one of the most junior of juniors at the criminal bar I am sceptical of the suggestion that what has been agreed has been done to protect us. It was clear that the no returns policy was launched without any thought of how the junior bar would react. When many of its number reacted negatively some acknowledgement of its effect was given. And now, that effect is being used as a justification for agreeing the deal and stopping the action.
But more frustratingly often senior members talk about the cuts as though the 17.5% reduction is nothing to do with us. Indeed, you do so to some extent in the article above. Yet those of us in pupillage or only a few years out of pupillage are deeply affected by these cuts. We are still in the magistrates' court for the bulk of our working week. I don't know what we are likely to receive for magistrates' court work done since 19 March. But I'll wager the cut will be greater than 8.75%. Yet this is rarely if ever discussed. The Bar Council certainly hasn't, to my knowledge, issued any new minimum recommended rates. Not that every chambers ensures those minimum rates are met.
What happened on Wednesday night is indicative of the problem which we have demonstrated all along. Mark George QC and I put forward a combined motion in November which read:
The calling of a day or days of action on which no members of the criminal bar will undertake work in either the magistrates or crown courts. We will ask for the support of the representative bodies of the solicitor's profession in standing by us on that (those) day (s). The purpose will be to demand that the government stays all its current proposals for legal aid and that the justice secretary engages with us meaningfully.
It was unanimously approved but wasn't observed. It was meant as motion promoting stopped TLA, not simply protecting fees. That's why working together was important. You say above 'we did not do this for solicitors. Not because we don't care but because we can't.' But we had the power to bring the courts to a halt with their assistance so I believe that on the contrary we could do this, not simply 'for solicitors' but for the entire publicly funded legal aid profession.
March 30, 2014 8:52 am
Simon, I was not commenting on your view of no returns, simply that the leadership apparently hadn't considered the likely reaction to it from juniors.
I find your comment on the magistrates' court fees astonishing. Yes, everyone wants to move on. So what? There is a constant but ever changing stable of barristers – barristers – who have to work in the magistrates' court. We all start there. They are pupils and juniors. You seem to be saying they don't matter. You've also twisted what I wrote originally in your reply. Solicitors don't pay £35 for a first appearance without the connivance of chambers. So I'm not willing to apportion blame in that way.
Since in your reply you ignore the question of whether it's in any way regrettable to preach unity, push the formation of a National Justice Committee, then abandon that committee, and agree a deal at the first approach of the MoJ let's deal with what you do say.
I think I will approach it in reverse. If the outcome of the ballot is, in effect, to reject the deal then what happens next? I think to demand a definitive answer to this is a shade disingenuous. No one will be able to give you an answer which can satisfy you. But then no one was ever able to say where direct action would lead us before so I don't know why you demand it now. However all the signs are that if we reject the deal and return to effective and unified opposition we have the potential to get closer to what we said we had been fighting for, ie 'not a penny more' cuts.
The reason I say the signs are good is the way this dispute has played out. At first we tried demonstrations, consultation responses, articles in the press and principled appeals to the Lord Chancellor's better nature. But Grayling is not a man with any sensitivity to the burden of his office, the rule of law or argument. To him all this is lofty abstraction. He is an ideologue and a political thug backed by a phalanx of functionaries who can devote all their working time to this while we struggle to repel the advance while having to do the day job at the same time.
So we had to change tack. You make the evidence-free claim that no returns worked but days of action did nothing. Last time I checked only one of those tactics made the papers. The point is each is part of a strategy. And when that strategy started to cost Grayling politically and, most importantly, economically that's when we got a response. And that is why if we returned to no returns and days of action in unison, with solicitors, and, dare I say it, probation, then the same problems Grayling had previously would still exist. Yes, he'd vilify us and call us unreasonable for not taking the deal. But he's been vilifying us and calling us unreasonable for around a year now anyway.
So direct action and no returns brought us to the point where the LC wanted to talk (or perhaps the judiciary and the Bar Council went to him, it's not clear). That was not the time to feel pleased with ourselves. That was the time to ask ourselves harder questions: why now? what has changed? why the reversal? For the MoJ to say 'here's the offer, take it within 48 hours or leave it and we won't come back' was clear bluster. There was no urgency in us accepting the offer. He was about to agree to postpone an element of the cuts for a year. Why shouldn't we have said 'We will think about it and come back to you in a week'? Put crudely, we got gamed. Grayling drew us out, isolated us from the solicitors, said it was the best we could hope for, and we bought it. Despite the fact, not a month ago he said the cuts were writ in stone.
So I don't know what happens if we reject the deal. But nor did we know what we would get by protesting. And I don't see that simply because there is a deal on the table, however unsatisfactory, that we should be forced to take it. Especially, and I appreciate this concerns me more than it does you, at the expense of unity. And as Dan and others have said above we are definitely finished if we take this deal. That should be motivation enough.
March 30, 2014 9:44 am
I said your view was evidence-free because you didn't provide any evidence for it. I don't agree that what I'm saying amounts to 'I know best'. I'm trying to analyse what has gone on by discussing the trajectory of this dispute.
"Moreover, the proposition that DoA works because it was in the papers is not only odd, but entirely contrary to your own stated view about Grayling and his approach."
I don't see how that is the case. I said that at the point at which our actions became politically and economically damaging and embarrassing to him, that is when he responded. The DoAs raised some interest in what was happening, alongside the no returns. How do I know that? Not from speaking to judges or journalists but from speaking with people – perhaps friends of friends or clients or people I've happened to meet for the first time – who mention that they saw the protests and wanted to know more.
You hadn't mentioned OCOF until now. Yes, the AG threatened it. But the response at the time was to enrage the profession even further. I do not believe he would have found imposing OCOF particularly easy in the face of continuing no returns and DoA. If he really wanted to do that, he could have by now. This might give him greater cause but he would simply look vindictive. How credible do you think his threat is?
Kris permalinkMarch 30, 2014 11:00 am
I know some people were desperately worried about how "the Public" would loathe us (even more) if we were to take direct action. That never transpired. Indeed, with Grayling's prison "book ban", it might be said that the tide was turning. Meanwhile, no returns was having the desired effect in that the Government found they really did need us after all.
It doesn't surprise me that the above brought them to the table. I do wonder how much more we could have gotten had we held out longer.
The point is the Heads of Chambers were all notified of an urgent and very important meeting. I know that as I am head of my one-woman band and I got the email.
I was not able to attend as I was tied up in the Mags. (perhaps this puts me at the pleb end of the Bar😉
The point is, a vote was taken and the Bar took the deal.
Now, people want us to go behind that deal with a series of wildcat strikes.
Individuals will do what's best for them – and they should.
I'm voting with my feet.
Chris Moran permalinkMarch 30, 2014 12:03 pm
In regards to Ian West's position. I was at a vote on the North Eastern Circuit where discussion was had regarding asking Grayling to wait any implementation of cuts to advocacy fees until after Leveson etc. He spoke in favour of the motion, stated correctly that it had always been CBA policy and voted for it. Less than a week later he was on Twitter, Facebook and Crimeline saying the exact opposite and calling the down the leadership for having such short-sighted views. His current stance is nothing short of political opportunism
March 30, 2014 1:58 pm
The accusation of political opportunism is offensive and unfair. I have been involved in Bar politics for about 11 years, on and off. I have never had any political ambitions whatever. I am often thanked for the work I do, and I always explain that I do it because I am a one-trick pony, with no prospects of ever being a judge or a QC. I'm 57 now, I have a young family, an overdraft that presently stands at £80,000 (all accruing in the past four years) and I need the job I do now – the only thing I know – to be available to me until I'm well into my 70s. I confess it freely: my motivation is entirely self-centred. I am a barrister, after all. And I shall continue to further my own interests by pressing for whatever I judge, from time to time, to be in those interests. Anyone who agrees with me is welcome to join me, on my quest for the Holy Grail – the preservation of the independent bar (and Fountain Chambers, Middlesbrough in particular). Anyone who doesn't, can pursue their own path. Simples.
Omar Khan permalinkMarch 30, 2014 3:58 pm
You almost mock those who disagree with CBA position for withdrawing their support of the CBA, having backed it in the past. Yet you have also changed your mind on the CBA position on no returns. Surely, to mock them, is to mock yourself. For what it's worth, I think you are entitled to change your mind, as the goalposts have been shifted, as are those who now criticise the CBA.
You fail to grasp the nettle in your discussion of how HCAs may come to be used in the future, the nettle being that if a 17.5% cut to the litigator fee is made, the Bar becomes unaffordable, and if small firms go to the wall, those larger firms who remain will retain the in-house advocacy expertise to cut you out. To-date, the HCA referral network has not mobilised to any great extent. I have only seen it in the largest firms. Small firms want to instruct the Bar; that is why you are still receiving instructions. They have good relations with the Bar, and they do not have the will or the resources to cover all of their Crown court work in-house. This is less true of the largest firms. What is the point of a promise not to use HCAs, when past practice demonstrates that on the current rates you are still being instructed?
So if small firms survive, which they will not under the duty contract proposals, and the cut of 17.5% is avoided, the Bar will still be instructed. You are not being asked to fight to preserve solicitors' ability to bring more work in-house; you are taking action to try and ensure that the hand that feeds you is still there 12 months down the line. You may point to a decline in instructions over the years, but that is a direct consequence of the same mistakes being made by the Bar prior to the Carter reforms, and reinforces the warning that instructions will drop once again if a further cut comes in.
To say 'if the solicitors are not going to instruct us in any event, we may as well takes this deal' squarely ignores what is being said and, in my view, is cutting off your nose to spite your face: the CBA taking this deal means that the bargaining position of solicitors groups is so weak that there is an inevitability to both the 17.5% cut and the limited number of duty contracts proposals coming in. Big firms + heavy cut means far fewer briefs: the best way of avoiding this was to tell the MoJ that no cuts means no cuts across the board, not just to the AGFS, which is what Tony Cross promised at the LAPG conference in October 2013. The weakness of this position is that there was much less chance of the MoJ backtracking on the 17.5% and limitation of duty contracts, as well as AGFS. It would have been almost incredible had it done so. But I would say that the consequences for those working in both arms of the profession are so bleak if the litigator fee cut and limited duty contracts come in, that it was necessary to hold out. Perhaps we would have secured a lower cut, more duty contracts. Anything that would have assisted solicitors, would also have assisted the independent Bar.
You will say I am part of the doom and gloom brigade. But when you are cut by 17.5% while you only have single-digit profit margins, you are doomed to fail unless you use fewer and cheaper staff to do the same amount of work, staff who are already working very hard, in the round, and who have only seen pay cuts not rises for many years. So yes, there is doom, and what of that is not gloomy? Quality will suffer. When instructions to the independent Bar decrease, and fewer barristers can survive in crime, what of that is not gloomy? When fees paid to the independent Bar in the magistrates' court are also reduced, which will directly hit those trying to grow their practice, thereby reducing social mobility, isn't that quite gloomy? And of course there are those members of the Bar who practise extradition at Westminster; how do they feel about the prospect of a 17.5% fee cut?
Your solution is to 'be better'. That, in my view, ignores the reality of the financial situation we face, and should provide little comfort to those at the very junior end of the Bar, or those from less well-off backgrounds aspiring to join the Criminal Bar.
I do not agree that NLQC's CBA statement 'sounds right'. I think the most telling part of it is where he says that had solicitors agreed not to work at the reduced rates introduced on 20 March, 'things might have been different'. For the sake of clarity, I am reading this to mean that the CBA might not have supported the MoJ deal on AGFS had solicitors demonstrated that they were also prepared to feel the pinch. So there was an alternative. He did not have to take this deal. But the solicitors according to him were insufficiently committed/militant. If he was thinking along those lines, he should have said so. After 12 months of the rep bodies working hand in glove, after everyone agreeing so wholeheartedly with his suggestion to form the National Justice Committee, and agreeing to meet each and every week to co-ordinate policy and action, he should not have felt so shy or the need to be so coy.
It speaks of division, and I don't know whether this attitude came from the No Returns policy: "we are suffering here; what are you doing for the cause?". If No Returns was so unsustainable, they should never have introduced it. That was your position before this deal was announced, and I would agree with it, if it actually was so unsustainable. However, the less senior juniors with whom I spoke during the operation of the policy, always indicated their full support for its continuation.
From my point of view, the situation is a mess, and had the CBA not allowed itself to be pressured by time to decide whether to accept this deal, we would not be in it. I join the sea of voices who do not subscribe to this point about the time-limited, one-time only offer. It reminds me of telephone frauds where vulnerable people are told they have been specially selected to benefit from a lucrative investment opportunity but must pay up immediately or the offer will expire.
And I refer just to the CBA and not the Circuit Leaders as it has been obvious throughout the past 12 months that the Bar's response to the proposed cuts has been led by the CBA, and it by far enjoys the greatest influence in negotiations. Had the CBA said no to the deal, there would not have been a deal. While NLQC is right to point out that most Leaders supported the deal, I think it is disingenuous to begin shifting responsibility on to them when the CBA enjoys so much influence and has been happy to take the credit for everything achieved by the Bar during the last 12 months.
It is also disingenuous for NLQC to say that the CBA initiated the day of action on 7 March. Those present at the meetings know as much. This is a small point, but significant in that it demonstrates NLQC's willingness to take full credit where it is not due, and his willingness to misrepresent the facts; this leaves a bad taste.
My own hope is that CBA members can persuade their leadership to abandon this deal and resume the unity, weaker though it will be.
You say you want chapter and verse on what will happen if the Bar does reject this deal. I'm afraid you cannot have it. We do not know what will happen. What we hope will happen is that the pressure on Grayling becomes so great that he sits down with all rep bodies, not just the Bar, and makes us an offer that we cannot refuse. And we will only be unable to refuse it if it preserves the existence of small crime firms, ensures that it will still be profitable to instruct the independent Bar, and ensures that it is still profitable for the independent Bar to continue accepting instructions from criminal defence lawyers.
The pressure that I hope will secure such an offer can only be generated by all rep bodies continuing to work together, as they had been doing for a whole year until 24 March. Solicitors need the Bar to be involved in the fight. No Returns needs to be regularly reviewed, perhaps at monthly intervals, not just done away with overnight. If the Junior Bar are prepared to stomach the pain, it should continue. If some cannot afford to continue, they should be prepared to accept returns. It does not have to be all or nothing. When solicitors demonstrated on 6 January and 7 March, some firms did not participate. They sent their lawyers to court. There was still widespread disruption. Work to rule has been implemented by the solicitors, and should be discussed by the CBA (I'm not sure whether it can work, but welcome its discussion as that could well lead to some other resolution).
Over 500 senior solicitors convened in Manchester to discuss a way forward. This was at extremely short notice. Franklin Sinclair rightly pointed out that not all were there to participate and voice agreement, some just to observe. But he also noted that it was some achievement for so many to have convened at such short notice. Refusal to work at the new rates was mooted, but it was felt that there were not enough present to secure agreement. It was agreed that it would be discussed at a later. Just the fact that such a drastic measure was discussed demonstrates the willingness of solicitors to also get their hands dirty in this fight.
The fact is that we are dealing with uncertainty, so your demand for certainty is not one that anyone can meet. Ideas are evolving all the time. The National Justice Committee was only formed in January 2014, 9 months into the campaign. Work to Rule kicked in very recently, as did No Returns. If the Government holds out for longer than solicitors/the Bar are able to, then of course it will mean defeat. But the MoJ making the AGFS offer is the best demonstration yet of whose resolve is weakening the fastest, in my view. You seem to ignore that divide and rule has been a popular tactic of the Government in the past, and here it is clearly rearing its ugly head once again. Why else would Grayling have made this offer? Why else would he have placed an absurd and arbitrary time limit on the offer? If solicitor rep bodies accepted a deal to reverse their cuts while AGFS cuts remained in place, the Bar would also complain of being sold down the river.
I note that you have not given chapter and verse on what will happen to the Bar if the deal remains in place. You just say that there is a need to 'be better' than HCAs. You dismiss those who fear the worst as doom and gloom merchants without stating how rosy you think the picture will be for the Junior Bar if the litigator cuts and changes are made. What will happen to the Junior Bar if litigators are cut by 17.5% and small firms go to the wall?
Just to be clear, I say nothing here that is intended to offend. I just question some of your reasoning and conclusions.
Nick permalinkMarch 30, 2014 6:52 pm
Hmm, openly admits he's been wrong about everything thus far but insists he is right now.
March 30, 2014 11:37 pm
May I as a solicitor explain some of the reasons why Solicitors have not been as forceful as the Bar in their opposition to Grayling's proposals?
1. We, unlike you, have Criminal Legal Aid Contracts. If we do not perform our obligations under those contracts then we are at real risk of a Contract notice. Get one of those and that is the end of your firm. Goodbye, goodnight and good riddance from the LAA. Have no doubt that the LAA would do this. Its probably fair to say that they are itching to serve such notices already. We are consequently in a far weaker position that the Bar.
We have already had a warning letter telling us that if we fail to secure CC representation for our clients then we could get a contract notice.
2. Greed. The bigger firms are already eyeing up the prospects of a duty contract with the rest of us gone and forgotten. The smaller firms by and large would honestly be more aggressive in their opposition to the cuts were it not for the fact that they know that the bigger firms would simply sweep up their clients.
3. We have failed to grasp that our power lies not at court but at the police station. If all solicitors were to refuse to attend the police station then this would undoubtedly bring the system to its knees. Having days of action that only affect courts is utterly useless. But we won't stop going to the nick because of reason 2.
We are doomed.
TheGoodWife permalinkMarch 31, 2014 7:54 am
Omemiserum, I disagree about your third point. I think the police would be rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect of another "training" day that included a refusal by solicitors to attend the police station. Whilst the cat is away the mice will play. I expect to see custody suites cleared out the night before, all prepped and in readiness for the start of the dawn raids at 5am. I see it as an opportunity for the police to execute special operations, gather up the n'er-do-wells and bring forward bail to return dates, all in the safe knowledge that there won't be a brief in sight. Those detained in custody will be told that solicitors are striking and not attending the police station. The vast majority of detainees will choose to go into an interview without a solicitor. I can also foresee record numbers of TICs on such a day. There is nothing like a lack of a solicitor and a McDonalds meal (Go Large of course) to induce vast numbers of TICs. We would not bring the system it's knees. The police will be over the moon. No briefs in the police station, lots of confessions and a load of unsolved/non-investigated crime off the books. The police will think Christmas has come early.
March 31, 2014 9:37 am
TGW -sorry but simply do not agree.
Angry Northerner permalinkMarch 31, 2014 3:13 pm
Looking at the various well thought out posts, there remain a few points that cannot seriously be in doubt. The effect of Grayling's proposals, especially so far as solicitors are concerned, has always been utterly unpredictable. Smaller firms may survive by amalgamating into larger firms but they may not. Existing huge firms might take over but, again, they may not. The only certainty is that those doing the solicitor's work will have to do so for less money. The easiest way, if not the only way, for them to do this is by taking as much work in house as possible. Quality doesn't come into it when survival is at stake (think Maslow's Hierarchy). This means that if these cuts come into effect the junior Bar is effectively finished. That is a virtual certainty.
The Bar has to consider carefully where it goes next. There is not much point in securing our payment rates if the work disappears. It is clear that solicitors will not fight the way the bar was prepared to. The reasons are set out by Omemiserum and reflect what a lot of solicitors are saying. Do we fight the fight for them?
If we do fight we risk ending up with nothing (not a big risk in my view). But then the present "deal" gives us nothing for the reasons set out above. If we fight on we have at least the prospect of further concessions. It is, of course true that if we fight on and win there is the risk that solicitors will still take huge amounts of work in house. Mr Grayling has created an environment in which nothing is certain.
What the Bar needs is some way of preserving its market. This cannot be just through excellence. Quality is, sadly, out of the window. The only possibility is through a version of QASA with real teeth. Perhaps that is the next battle.
It does seem to me that the CBA have been a little naive in their dealing with the MoJ. "This offer expires in 48 hours" is the stock in trade of the shady salesman and I am surprised the CBA fell for it. The problem is that we are rather stuck with it now. "Bar welches on deal over pay" would not make good reading.
Perhaps your contributors can think of a practical and constructive way forward. I don't know that I can.
Ed permalinkMarch 31, 2014 6:35 pm
Complaints about the actual QASA have been going on for years. Quality is the only differentiator for the Bar. It is time for the Bar to make a robust scheme that measures Excellent Advocacy (avoids the word "quality" which leads to ambiguity of initialism). Put up, or go under.
March 31, 2014 3:59 pm
I am a solicitor, and an HCA. I run the criminal department in a mixed practice in the provinces. My department has 9 solicitors and 3 support staff, but my firm has over 100 staff.
If I stopped taking work at post 20th March rates, I would suffer myself but my staff would be the first to suffer. I would either have to make pay cuts all round or commence redundancy procedures, probably by the end of April, and all whilst other, less scrupulous local competitors, or more likely from a neighbouring city, attended and represented my clients.
The fact that someone else will do the work means that I am only harming my own practice.
By July, the work would still be done by the competitors and so the courts would still run and cases would still progress. I would of course have informed the LAA that I was not prepared to carry out work at the lower rates. The LAA would have suggested I apply for a contract to allow me to run down my existing work.
My partners would undoubtedly say to me by then that we would have to close the department, or I would have to go back to work, at the lower rates.
If I did not, neither I nor my colleagues would be on the next rota, removing any prospect of new Duty work being obtained. The work of the last dozen years would be undone and I would be out of business.
At least my staff have the prospect of redundancy pay as I am part of a mixed practice. Think how swiftly those firms who are "crime only", both big and small, would run into financial difficulties. That would lead to staff being laid off without any prospect of redundancy or any form of ordered departure. It would lead to bankruptcy for the firms' owners, and I am not exaggerating to say that this could easily occur within 3 months.
The overheads incurred in running a business are frequently underestimated.
Bankruptcy precludes firms resurrecting themselves, even if MoJ did reinstate the pre 20th March rates. This would also lead to severe financial difficulties for the staff, both solicitors, barristers and support staff.
Grayling's aim of reducing the number of firms MoJ has to deal with would be achieved.
I am not blind to the fact that the no returns policy which appears to have brought MoJ to the table was causing significant problems to many members of the Bar, but the Bar had strong leadership from CBA and there was unity.
Solicitors have The Law Society whose preferred negotiating technique is to roll over and have their tummy tickled.
Without The Law Society advising every firm not to work at post 20th March rates, I, and I suspect many others, would be out of business inside 3 months. That is why solicitors are continuing to work, and will continue to look at any legitimate method of making up the financial shortfall. This will necessarily mean that the amount of work being retained in house will increase. I am not happy about this, but I can't see a way round it. Whatever occurs, the face of the criminal defence, and criminal justice system, is going to change irrevocably in the next 2 or 3 years.
Now, where did I put that text book on Land Law?
K Payton permalinkMarch 31, 2014 4:18 pm
It is not that Solicitors don't want unity; it is that we cannot have unity.
The very people who stand in the way of unity are the ones who want dual contracts so they can suck up all the work, who will employ HCA and take work away from the Bar and want rid of the smaller firms (who remain ever loyal to the Bar).They are called the BFG and right now the Bar needn't worry about them… but once they hold all the contracts and once they have got rid of the smaller firms they will undeniably be the Bars problems and unity will be gone, followed shortly by the independent Bar.
We are not asking you to fight for us – gather the evidence (what size firms instruct you regularly, will they get a contract in your area?) and fight for yourselves.
March 31, 2014 5:21 pm
K Payton – absolutely spot on. BFG are the ones who are preventing the smaller firms from being more militant and BFG are doing this purely from self interest. They have no concerns about the effect on clients or the criminal justice system as a whole.
Add to that the Law Soc seems to spend all its time promoting the interests of BFG and you have a perfect storm.
The time might now have come to tell Law Soc that you do not have authority to negotiate on our behalf and tell Mr Grayling to negotiate (or not) with CLSA.
K Payton permalinkMarch 31, 2014 7:48 pm
We did, the vote of no confidence… Hudson is resigning and Fluck has the hide of a rhino! TLS are not the CBA, they don't pretend to be our trade union yet they insist on meeting the MOJ when it should be CLSA/LCCSA (who at least try and speak for the many different interests of different size firms). Is it vanity that makes them try? I don't know but whatever it is, I wish they would quit!
Chris Moran permalinkApril 1, 2014 8:10 pm
I have spent the last few months being as robust in talking with my fellow Counsel about taking as much direct action as possible. I argued that should the Government not consider the reasonable demand of the CBA (I spotted the 'pause and wait until after Leveson' request from the CBA back in the Consultation Response and have no idea why nobody else saw it) then any action we take is not unreasonable including a complete downing of tools. In fact I have argued for, and continue to believe that in the background should remain the possibility of downing tools completely. Our greatest weapon in the absence of Government negotiating is withdrawal of our labour. I also tried to generate as much media attention as possible on the issue and I too stood shoulder to shoulder with solicitors.
Whatever your view of the proposal it was an achievement the leaders we barristers chose (Circuit, CBA, Chambers Bar Council) to represent us that they negotiated 'the deal' with Grayling. The idea that we 'had him by the throat', 'dragged him kicking and screaming' and begging us to accept the first offer is nothing more than fanciful. Do any of the people who negotiated that – who were closest to the storm – who were there and who the day before we considered of the highest judgment agree with that? There are some supportive MPs on this issue – have they reported bumping into Grayling crying in a corridor in Parliament? Have they reported seeing him biting his fingernails and talking to himself whilst trying to hide the self-inflicted marks on his wrists? Have any of our political contacts, many as they are, who are close to this given you this information or are you all acting upon an assumption? An assumption that presumes you are right? I want people to consider the question "what if I'm wrong?".
Our leaders got this because of a careful balance of the following:
1) the possibility of further and more intense action.
2) because the Bar was united and made very simple demands (depending upon the size of the law firm and the geographical location the 'bottom line' for solicitors shifts)
3) because of constant persuasive pressure, on key Bar demands in every possible forum from Parliament, MPs, representatives bodies and political contacts (the leadership of the law society being made to look entirely ineffectual, redundant and unfocused in comparison).
All the above factors gave our leaders political capital which it banked. Whatever our view on whether we should have reached this position we are in it. All our political muscle, all our influence and all our credibility now rely upon us trying to deal with Grayling. It may be the wrong road but it may be the only possible road now. All our eggs are in that basket.
It may also be the reality that now we have reached this 'deal' the best chance for solicitors may be Lithman sitting down with Grayling because he, the Bar Council and the Leaders of Circuit have shown that, on some level, they can influence him. The Law Society not having generated anywhere near the same amount of influence.
It did however put us in a very precarious position. I concede that. If this gamble goes wrong we may lose everything. But we run that risk either way and one way may destroy the influence and position we have generated.
As Counsel we should always "aim for the best but plan for the worst".
The best if we reject this 'deal' – the Bar (potentially now hopelessly split) and solicitors (to date lacking anywhere near the same level of unity) through various forms of direct action manage to force a Tory Government (always known for responding well to such strike tactics) completely reverse the cut already brought in, promise not to cut any fee at all and reverses the policy on dual contacts. They go on record as having saved all the lawyers whilst cutting other aspects of public funding. How many actually see this as a realistic possibility?
The worst – the Government, in anger at what they will spin as the Bar breaking it's word says to solicitors "Ok, we will reduce the cuts significantly, will abandon dual contracts, will find our savings from advocacy fees and to make the system more cost-effective will take away ring-fenced Crown Court fees and introduce One Case One Fee to help firms cope with the reduction". The cynic in me does not have a lot of faith in there remaining unity between the professions if that was offered. The Bar would be destroyed, after having broken our word.
The CBA request for this delay, having been published for many months, may have been a mistake and upon reflection many may feel we should not have gotten ourselves into this position. I can understand that view. But we deal with the position we find ourselves in rather than the position we used to be in and we play the cards we are dealt.
I am reserving my vote until the last moment. I am open to persuasion on this issue because it is the most important vote I have ever had on the future of the profession I love so much (I am nothing without this job), the system I'm proud of and the colleagues (both barristers and solicitors) who I see as friends and some of whom are the most admirable individuals I could ever hope to meet.
I write this because of the black and white fevered arguments I have seen. I know from private discussions I have had with fellow Counsel that many have the same concerns as me. However they fear the reprisals from people threatening to try and ruin their practices if they say so and are therefore unwilling to speak openly.
Like I say, I want to be open to the arguments, I want to be wrong, but the above thoughts and concerns are very real in my mind and they dominate my thoughts. I understand that the cuts to firms will ruin the Bar as a consequence. I just have genuine trouble believing that throwing away our current position, fracturing the Bar in the process and pulling the CBA apart has any change of success. Could we ever have the same unity again if that happened? I need to be convinced that the road we are now on (whatever the many obstacles and odds we face) is not the only chance either profession now has.
April 2, 2014 11:43 am
I disagree with most of what you say, but may I take issue with one discrete point? You say that we (the junior bar) can compete with HCA's by being better. The word we would find ourselves in is one where cost is king. Quality would have nothing to do with it. Winning or loosing is irrelevant, indeed if doing the job well mean; more work for the I/S, instructing experts or preparing the case in depth, quality becomes positively unattractive to solicitors.


text:
Oakland, Berkeley, And East Bay News, Events, Restaurants, Music, & Arts
Check out etsy for likes weed good person pendants in sterling silver
Kona Club has been open 365 days a year for 16 years.
Club Mallard in Albany has been open 365 days a year since the 90s.
So if you're broke, you should go see animals being abused? This is a place that has actually had a former employee charged with felonies for cruelty to animals! East Bay Express, I expect more from you, I really do. There's a million wonderful CHEAP things to do across the east bay that doesn't involve helping people profit off abuse.


text:
Sunbrella sponsors Southern Living Idea House
July 18, 2011-- Casual Living,
Sunbrella is a sponsor of the 2011 Southern Living Idea House that opened in Horseshoe Bay, Texas this month, with prominent placement on retractable awnings, a loggia and numerous outdoor furniture settings.
Austin-based Hill Country Shades of Texas partnered with Sunbrella fabrics for the project, providing the design and installation of the house's extensive shade structures.
"We continue to enjoy our partnership with Southern Living and the Idea House because it showcases our fabrics in ways that will inspire the magazine's readers," said Gina Wicker design and creative director for Sunbrella fabrics. "This year's house has an architectural style and extensive grounds that allow us to share the entire Sunbrella story from our awning roots to the marine lifestyle to indoor and outdoor furnishings."
The 4,700-sq.-ft. estate is located in the golf community of Escondido in Horseshoe Bay and is positioned on lakefront property on Lake LBJ. It was designed by Michael G. Imber of Michael G. Imber Architects with interior design by Marcus Mohon of Mohon-Imber Interiors.
Golden sandstone makes up the home's façade, along with reclaimed-wood beams, blue woodwork details and clay roof tiles. Two coordinating Solair retractable awnings from Tri Vantage, a division of Glen Raven, Inc., shade the outdoor dining porch and boat dock. The awnings feature Decorator Somfy-Matic motors with wind sensors that automatically retract the awnings when needed. Both awnings are fabricated in Moreland Nugget, a fabric from Tri Vantage's exclusive Mayfield Collection.
"Awnings are a must-have for outdoor spaces in our part of the country," said A.D. Pitcher, owner of Hill Country Shades of Texas and the awning fabrication partner for the project. "The shade structures at this home demonstrate the beauty and functionality of shade and the seamless way it can be integrated into a home's façade."
Along with awnings, Pitcher also created a retractable Sunbrella fabric shade system for a loggia made of reclaimed wood along the home's exterior wall. The fabric Canvas Cornsilk was used overhead and Sunbrella sheer panels hang between the loggia beams, creating a romantic setting.
Sunbrella furniture fabrics are featured on all outdoor furnishings at the house, including furniture from the Southern Living furniture line through NorthCape International, as well as outdoor furniture by Ballard Designs. Additionally, Sunbrella sheers are used for several indoor window treatments throughout the home.
The Sunbrella presence at the Southern Living Idea House is also on display on the water on Christine, a custom Hacker-Craft Runabout that is docked at the house. The classic 24-foot wooden boat was built in 1997 and features a bimini made of Sunbrella Sand marine fabric.
The Southern Living Idea House will be open to the public July 4-Oct. 2, Wednesday through Saturday from 11 a.m.-5 p.m. and Sunday from 1-5 p.m. The house is closed on Monday and Tuesday and admission is $10. For more details on this project, click here.
For more information, visit sunbrella.com
Related Content By Author
Sponsored Links
Featured Video
Casual Friday: Three Online Marketing Tips


text:
Come to Automac Cars & Credit Friday, February 22nd from 4-6pm to win $200 in Gas and Grocery Gift Cards from 99.9 Gator Country! Automac Cars & Credit, great cars and easy credit, is located on Blanding Blvd just north of I-295. Come out for a cookout and win free gas & groceries from 99.9 Gator Country!
Copyright © 2016 Renda Broadcasting. All Rights Reserved.


text:
The K-12 Teacher Education programs prepare you to become an innovative and competent educator who is willing to make a difference in the lives of students. The Florida Department of Education recognizes our programs as among the best in the state. The job you want awaits you. Upon completion of any of our programs, you will be in high demand as a skilled educator with excellent prospects for immediate employment.
We offer state-approved Bachelor of Science, K-12 Teacher Education programs that lead to Florida Teacher professional certification. Learn more about the various Concentrations available:
Our programs include:


text:
By continuing to use this site, you agree to our use of cookies.
In Japan? You can go to Argus Japan
Forgotten your password?
31 Aug 2011, 3.45 pm GMT
Sao Paulo, 31 August (Argus) — Brazilian government crop supply agency Conab lowered its 2011-2012 season estimate for sugar cane production and ethanol output from the main center-south growing region, as bad weather and underinvestment continue to trim milling results.
The region is now forecast to crush 519mn t of cane, down 9.4pc from Conab's initial May forecast of 573mn t. Brazil harvested 560mn t in the 2010-11 season.
The center-south, which accounts for 90pc of Brazil's cane, will produce 21.5bn liters of ethanol, down 16pc from the 25.6bn l produced from the previous crop, Conab said.
Anhydrous ethanol will account for 8bn l, up 12pc from the 7.1bn l produced the season before, as mills favor the production of the fuel additive that gets blended into all domestic commercial gasoline. The government earlier this week lowered the mandatory blend of anhydrous to 20pc from 25pc — where hit has been in recent years — because of short supplies and the impact of high ethanol prices on overall fuel prices.
Hydrous ethanol output will reach 13.5bn l this season, Conab said, a 27pc from the 18.5bn l produced last season.
The high price of sugar has kept mills allocating as much cane as their capacity will permit to production of the sweetener. The government cap on the price of gasoline, with which hydrous ethanol competes, has squeezed the profit margins after ethanol production costs have risen steadily in recent years.
Send comments to firstname.lastname@example.com
ej/mgb 2.4
If you would like to review other ArgusMedia.com content options, request more information about Argus' energy news, data and analysis services.
Copyright © 2011 Argus Media Ltd - www.ArgusMedia.com - All rights reserved.
View more news articles
Request a callback
I agree to the Argus privacy policy
2 Dec 2016, 10.12 pm GMT
2 Dec 2016, 8.33 pm GMT
2 Dec 2016, 8.29 pm GMT
2 Dec 2016, 6.40 pm GMT
View more


text:
Artist Collection: (532 of 844)< Previous | Next >
Tags: lake, sunrise, dawn, mountain, Mt. Rainier, fog, mist, rising, reflection, still, calm, alpine, grass, Washington, wilderness
- + MOUSE OVER image to zoom in
- + CLICK to enlarge
majestic dawnby dawson images
- Medium
- Photography
- Artist Notes
- An alpine lake reflecting first light kissing the peak of Mt. Rainier on a cold summer morning as the mist rises off the lake.
- Contact Artist Send Artist an Email
More about dawson images
- Location
- wa, usa
- Artist Biography
- I have been behind a camera for over 27 years now. Everything from 4x5 to 35mm to now digital. My passion is the beauty of God's creations on this wonderful earth. I am constantly chasing the light from The PAcific NW to the Desert SW and down to Australia in search of images that best capture the ...


text:
Crafty Secrets Clear Art Stamp Large: 8"x6" - Vint
Item #: 753203 | Model #: 382417 |
We're sorry, this item is not available in your selected Club. Check another Club
About this itemA must have for every Scrapbooker and Crafter!
These stamps cling to any acrylic stamping block (not included). The special features of these adorable heavily detailed stamps make them a must-have for any card maker, scrapbooker, as well as stamper. Features high quality, non-yellowing, and long life photopolymer material. Also featured is artistic detailed designs, versatile sets that let you mix and match designs and sets, and they\'re light weight for easy storage and transport. Stamps come mounted on 8x6 inch heavy weight plastic sheets for secure storage. Size and number of stamps vary be design.
Assembled Country
Component Country


text:
Prompt, secure access to full statements:
Plan a virtual visit with a provider through your PC or mobile device:
Securely connects you to portions of your medical record:
Online second opinions from top specialists:
Securely request a copy of your Images Studies from our Images Library:
Physician-to-physician medical record access:
Medical record system for physicians in private practice:
Find phone numbers and email addresses for Cleveland Clinic Online Services:
Our award-winning blog brings you insights on health, nutrition and wellness from experts you can trust. Enjoy recipes, videos, infographics and more from the nation's no.1 hospital blog.
Complete our online appointment request form and receive an email response within 1 business day:
Request an Appointment
Contact us with Questions
More Options
Expand Content
Staff Surgeon, Department of Vascular Surgery
Specialties: Endovascular and open treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms, thoracic aortic aneurysms and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms. Endovascular and open treatment of carotid artery/vertebral artery disease. Endovascular and open treatment of renal artery and mesenteric artery disease. Endovascular and open treatment of peripheral arterial disease. Stent therapy for aneurysmal and occlusive arterial disease. Thoracic outlet syndrome (venous, arterial, and neurogenic). Endovenous therapy for varicose veins. Pediatric vascular disease. Aortic aneurysm pathogenesis.
Click here to view video.
Hello, I'm Dr. Matt Eagleton, a vascular surgeon at the Miller Family Heart & Vascular Institute. Today I would like to discuss Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms and surgical treatment options. The aorta is the largest blood vessel in the body, carrying high volumes of blood to the legs and organs of the lower body. Sometimes, a bulge forms on the abdominal aorta. We call this an abdominal aortic aneurysm, or AAA.
An AAA starts small and grows over time. It swells and stretches and fills with blood like a water balloon. Eventually, it simply bursts. The result is catastrophic internal bleeding. A ruptured AAA is usually fatal. Most people don't even make it to the hospital. That is why AAA needs to be detected and treated early – before it ruptures.
Some 20,000 cases of AAA are diagnosed every year. It is a leading cause of death in white men over 60. The risk factors are the same as for cardiovascular disease, including smoking, high blood pressure, overweight and a sedentary lifestyle.
No one is sure what causes AAA however genetics are a factor. Fifteen to 20 percent of cases seem to run in families. If a close relative of yours has died from a ruptured aneurysm, you may be at high risk. If you smoke, have high blood pressure or any combination of these factors, you are also at high risk.
AAA has no obvious symptoms. You may have an advanced case and feel perfectly well. A ruptured aortic aneurysm may feel like a heart attack, dizziness, or back or abdominal pain. If you experience these symptoms, you need to call 911 and get to a hospital fast.
AAA is easy to detect with the right tools. The first step is to take an ultrasound. This is a non-invasive test that shows the organ structures in the abdomen. If your physician detects AAA, he or she will then order a CAT scan. This allows the physician to measure the diameter of the AAA. Size determines the course of treatment. A small aneurysm is not likely to burst anytime soon. So the usual course of action is to "watch and wait." That means returning to the doctor to have the aneurysm measured on a regular basis. We need to know if the bulge is growing, and if so, how fast. At the same time, we address your risk factors. If you have high blood pressure, we try to lower it. If you smoke, we try to help you quit. AAA never shrinks or goes away on its own. Surgery is the only effective treatment. An aneurysm with a diameter of 2 inches or larger is at high risk of popping or bursting. An AAA of this size -- or one that is rapidly approaching this size — calls for surgery.
There are two types of surgery for AAA. The first is an open aneurysm repair. This is done through a large incision in the abdomen. We remove the aneurysm, and graft a flexible polyester tube in its place. The prosthetic blood vessel functions just like a healthy aorta. Specialized grafts are made for when an aneurysm occurs at where the aorta branches. Open aneurysm repair is major surgery. It requires total anesthesia and the stamina to undergo a long procedure. You may be in the hospital from five to ten days. Recovery can take from weeks to months. At the same time, it is also a very effective operation. Ninety-five percent of patients have a successful recovery. The grafts are very durable and can last for decades.
The other type of surgery is minimally invasive endovascular repair, or stent grafting. This procedure is done inside the artery, using long thin tubes, called catheters. The catheter is inserted through a small incision in the upper thigh, and threaded through the blood vessels to the site of the aneurysm. The catheter carries a kind of tubular mesh scaffolding called a stent. The stent expands inside the aneurysm and supports the blood vessel from within. It's like tube within a tube. This procedure is not typically done under local anesthesia, but regional anesthesia, like an epidural. The hospital stay is two or three days. The stent graft is not as solidly placed as a graft implanted in open surgery. So you need to return routinely to make sure it is staying in place. Not all patients are eligible for stent grafting. Some aneurysms form in awkward places, or some aortas may be too twisted to allow the catheter to pass. In these cases, open surgery is the only alternative. Worldwide, the mortality for AAA procedures is about 4-5 percent. At Cleveland Clinic, mortality for AAA treatment is less than 2 percent.
There is more information about AAA and its treatment on the Miller Family Heart & Vascular Institute website. I hope that you will learn as much as you can about this serious condition, and get screening and treatment if it is appropriate. Thank you.
Contact us , chat online with a nurse, or call the Miller Family Heart & Vascular Institute Resource & Information Nurse at 216.445.9288 or toll-free at 866.289.6911. We would be happy to help you.
This information is provided by Cleveland Clinic and is not intended to replace the medical advice of your doctor or health care provider. Please consult your health care provider for advice about a specific medical condition.
Call a Heart & Vascular Nurse locally 216.445.9288 or toll-free 866.289.6911.
Toll-free 800.659.7822
Cleveland Clinic © 1995-2016. All Rights Reserved. 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio 44195 | 800.223.2273 | TTY 216.444.0261


text:
Less than two months into 2011 and the buyers are busy. Already we've seen an investor group led by Chanticleer Holdings Inc. close on its purchase of Hooters of America Inc. for an undisclosed sum. In January, 57th Street General Acquisition Corp. announced it would acquire and take public the 34-unit Crumbs Bake Shop cupcake chain for $66 million. That deal is expected to close in March. Tavistock Restaurants LLC is in the process of acquiring Boston-based Back Bay Restaurant Group. ...
Register to view this article
It's free but we need to know a little about you to continually improve our content.
Why Register?
Registering allows you to unlock a portion of our premium online content. You can access more in-depth stories and analysis, as well as news not found on any other website or any other media outlet. You also get free eNewsletters, blogs, real-time polls, archives and more.
Attention Print Subscribers: While you have already been granted free access to NRN we ask that you register now. We promise it will only take a few minutes!
Questions about your account or how to access content?
Contact: Desiree Torres email@example.com


text:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: October 29, 2008
CONTACT: David Willett, 202.675.6698
Palin Speech on Energy Policy:
More of the Same or Even Worse
Sarah Palin today addressed energy policy at the Xunlight Corporation in Toledo. The following is a statement from Carl Pope, Sierra Club Executive Director:
"Sarah Palin's signature achievement in this campaign has been to remove any remaining doubt that John McCain's energy policy would continue to focus on the same failed Bush policies that have wrecked our economy and left us more dependent on hostile foreign regimes and unreliable, polluting sources of energy.
"Palin has consistently misled Americans about both the role Alaska plays in meeting America's energy needs and her own policies. The Associated Press revealed last week that the natural gas pipeline she often touts may never be built, could leave taxpayers on the hook for $400 million, and was awarded through a bidding process infiltrated by industry lobbyists and rife with impropriety by Palin and others in her administration. And instead of 'country first,' just last year Palin made sure that Alaska's natural gas would go to Asia—not America.
"It's beyond ironic that Sarah Palin chose to appear at a solar power facility considering that John McCain has said that clean energy technologies 'don't work' and Palin said they were 'far from imminent.' More importantly, McCain has consistently voted against renewable energy, and his failure to support clean energy tax incentives earlier this year put more than 116,000 hardworking Americans in the wind and solar industries on the brink of layoffs. This is just more proof that John McCain is wrong on the economy, wrong on energy, and wrong for Ohio and America.
"And just as we learned about another disturbing safety problem at the extremely troubled Davis Besse nuclear station, McCain twice this week recklessly dismissed Obama's common sense concerns about safety and national security as mere 'blah blah blah.' McCain's attitude is particularly unnerving considering that he wants to push forward with a plan to transport more than 77,000 tons of highly dangerous nuclear waste through 44 states to the unsafe and unproven Yucca Mountain waste dump. Yet, McCain has said he 'wouldn't be comfortable' with waste traveling through his home state of Arizona.
"John McCain has even abandoned his own past embrace of meaningful action on global warming. His chief economic advisor now states that upholding the landmark 2007 Supreme Court decision on global warming would amount to Soviet-style economic planning. This is the same ridiculous argument cooked up by polluters and pushed by the Bush administration, which has now unlawfully refused to uphold the High Court's decision for over a year. John McCain may not be George Bush, but it's getting awfully difficult to figure out how their policies would be any different.
"Instead of a backward-looking energy policy focused on the past, we need the 21st century energy plan put forward by Barack Obama. His plan will invest $150 billion in clean energy—wind and solar power, energy efficiency, retrofitting our buildings, and manufacturing the next generation of fuel-efficient vehicles in factories right here in Ohio and across America—and create 5 million new jobs. His plan will jumpstart our economy and put America back on the path to prosperity."
# # #


text:
my mothers name is printed where it says "purchased by"
does it matter that i am, believe it or not, not my mom? i don't need her i.d or anything do i?
my mothers name is printed where it says "purchased by"
does it matter that i am, believe it or not, not my mom? i don't need her i.d or anything do i?
There shouldnt be any problems.
They're just going to scan it and give you a wrist band.
(Unless they just put up will call and that's what you're talking about)
Either way, if you bring your own ID you shouldnt have any problems as you both have the same last name, correct?
Change your name to Wanda. Problem solved. (shouldn't be a problem unless you're picking up tickets from Will Call)
"Well, that's just like, you know... your opinion, man"
Think about it little dude, if a husband buys a ticket for himself and his wife, does it say wife on her tic
You buy a tic from a scalper at the gate: does it say scalper
But as someone said, if you are picking it up at will call and you will not have it in hand, you are in trouble... cr****
Have Another Hit Of Colorado Sunshine
haha, thanks guys. very helpful
my sister picked up a ticket under my dads name at another concert not too long ago. I dont see it being a problem.
Even with Will Call, as long as you either have a photocopy of the credit card it was purchased on, or your ID with the same last name as the person who bought it, you wont have problems.
nuff said.
You should just give the ticket to your mom because you love her. <3
can your mom buy me a ticket?
2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2016
Excuse me sir, I'm lost, I'm looking for a place, Where I can get lost
I'm looking for a home, For my malfunctioning being, I'm looking for the mechanical music museum
All I have to say is this threads title is awesome
"Without music life would be a mistake" ~Nietzsche
8/7/16 - Sufjan Stevens @ Hollywood Bowl // 8/8/16 - Radiohead @ Shrine // 8/8/16 - Boris @ Regent
9/14/16 - Wilco @ Theatre at Ace Hotel // 9/18/16 - Kraftwerk @ Hollywood Bowl
huh, ive never heard of that being done!
the more you know
i need to know why your mom isn't coming?
she's hot


text: photo blog Nathan Fletcher, Pipeline Photo: Zak Noyle By SURFER | posted on October 02, 2013 Previous BlogG-Land, East JavaNext BlogDylan Goodale, Central America noob Your feet can feel waves like this crashing when your 20 yards away standing on the beach. canvas prints Nice is such a cool photo. i would love to be able to do that.


text:
25 U.S. Code § 1235 - Identity of eligibility roll and membership roll
§ 1235.
Identity of eligibility roll and membership roll
The roll prepared by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to this subchapter shall not be deemed to constitute the membership roll of the Chemehuevi Tribe.
(Pub. L. 91–417, § 5, Sept. 25, 1970, 84 Stat. 868.)
LII has no control over and does not endorse any external Internet site that contains links to or references LII.


text:
CLIFTON PARK A candlelight vigil will be held at 6:30 p.m. Tuesday at the Shenendehowa High School Athletic Stadium to honor the lives of the two students killed in a car crash Saturday night and to offer support for the two other students who were injured, the school announced today.
Seniors Chris Stewart and Deanna Rivers were killed in a two-vehicle crash Saturday. State police have blamed the driver of the other vehicle for the crash, which also sent two other students to the hospital. Injured were Matt Hardy, 17, a Shenendehowa student, and Bailey Wind, 17, a Shaker High School student.
Meanwhile, the board of education meeting scheduled for Tuesday has been postponed until Dec. 11 at 7p.m.


text:
Student Profiles:
New Student - attending Peralta College for the first time.
Returning Student - has a Peralta Student ID # but has not enrolled a class in the last two semesters.
Continuing Student - has attended Peralta classes in this semester or the last semester.
International Student - studying in the U.S. on a student visa.
Get Help with Applying & Enrolling:
BCC Ambassadors are ready to help you at the 1st floor Welcome Desk!
Fall 2016 Moodle Site:
Sunday 11 December 2016


text:
I found the LogLogic MX appliance to be among the easiest-to-use management products, and it has all the functionality most administrators would need for basic log management. The GUI is simple and uncluttered. I didn't find myself looking to help manuals nearly as much as I did in other products.
LogLogic sent its 2U-high MX3020 appliance (version 4.9.1 software), which combines the feature sets of the company's LX and ST boxes, thus encompassing log collection, reporting, archiving, and forensics functions, and adds one or more compliance suites. The test unit came with five Ethernet interfaces and 2TB of RAID10 storage, and it was easily the quietest and coolest -- as in low temperature -- appliance tested. Setup was a breeze.
LogLogic's management interface is accessed via HTTPS and opens by default to a summary statistics dashboard. All the statistics you'd expect are shown, including message rates, CPU utilization, and disk space. The GUI was clean, easy to understand, and responsive. The only missing element is the ability to quickly drill down into more detail via context-sensitive graphs, which many of the competitors have.
Monitored clients can be added manually, one at a time, or through the use of queries, or by allowing the MX3020 to inspect inbound message streams to see if it can identify the source devices. Similar devices or clients can be collected together into a device group for easier management. LogLogic has more than 70 predefined device types (definitions ease message parsing), including most of the popular vendors and generic Syslog.
To continue reading this article register now
Learn More Existing Users Sign In


text:
Top Hotels
|Hotel Des Balances
|Price: USD 143.45 Minimum rate per night
|Seehotel Hermitage
|Price: USD 175.75 Minimum rate per night
|Hotel Express by Holiday Inn
|Price: USD 138.28 Minimum rate per night
Top attractions
The Rosengart Collection are displayed in a empire styled neo-classical building and was built in 1924 by city architect, Hermann Herter. The displays in the former Swiss National Bank includes displa ...
Address Luzern, Schweiz
Glacier Garden (Gletschergarten)
Glacier Garden or the Gletscger garten was actually built around a glacial pothole which has survived since the Ice Age. This museum displays artifacts from the town history. This is a geological form ...
Address Denkmal St 4, Luzern
The Richard Wagner Museum offers display of the fascinating world of the famous composer, Richard Wagner and a variety of precious musical instruments. There are two extraordinary collections at this ...
Address Luzern, Schweiz
The Musegg Wall is a part of the old rampart walls which was built in 1386. This wall is entirely intact still now and is open to the public. The nine towers are known by the name Maennli, Nolli ...
Stadkeller is a place which serves good food and has a unique atmosphere where one can enjoy the carefree hours amidst the Swiss folk music. ...
Address Sternen Platz 3, Luzern
Related Contents
Map Switzerland:
More information Switzerland:


text:
Ready Pac Produce Promotes Two Pac Produce, here, has promoted Erin Tice to the new position of vice president and general manager of the retail specialty division, while Brian Zomorodi has been promoted to the new position of vice president of technology and quality systems. Tice previously was general manager of the retail specialties division and now, in her new role, joins Ready Pac's executive committee. She also currently sits on the advisory board of the Alexandria, Va.-based United ...
REGISTER TO VIEW THIS ARTICLE - Register for a Free Account
Why Register for FREE?
Registering for content on Supermarket News will give you INSTANT access to invaluable articles and media content that industry professionals rely on. You will have access to our special reports, feature articles, and industry analysis. It's FREE, easy and quick. What are you waiting for! In addition you will also receive complimentary access to the SN salary survey data tables.
Click here to read the FAQ page if you have any questions (opens in a new window)
Attention Paid Print Subscribers: While you have already been granted free access to SN we ask that you register now. We promise it will only take a few minutes! Or visit your profile and add your print magazine account number and zip code.